i-law.com

THE "MARY FLETT."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Collision between steam drifters Nulli Secundus and Mary Flett off Great Yarmouth in fog-Nulli Secundus outward bound to fishing grounds; Mary Flett inward bound-Mary Flett navigating on wrong side of channel- Contention by Mary Flett that Nulli Secundus was proceeding too fast in fog and that she did not reverse her engines soon enough - Contributory negligence-Finding of County Court Judge that Mary Flett was atone to blame-Appeal by Mary Flett.

THE "LUIMNEACH."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 5

Collision - Damages - Non-profit-earning vessel - Reference - Collision between H.M.S. Whirlwind and steamship Luimneach-Replacement of Whirlwind by vessel in reserve - Claim by Admiralty for "(7) Damages for the withdrawal of H.M.S. Whirlwind from service for 28 days, or in the alternative claim for fitting out and use of H.M.S. Wessex taken from reserve for corresponding period" - Amount claimed £2500-£500 allowed by Registrar in respect of cost of transfer from and into reserve-Motion in objection by Admiralty - Contention that sum allowed was in fact an item of special damage and that the learned Registrar had ignored the claim for general damages based on interest on capital value, depreciation and maintenance -The Chekiang, [1926] A.C. 637; 25 Ll.L.Rep. 173, and the Susquehanna, [1926] A.C. 655; 25 Ll.L.Rep. 205, discussed.

THE "JOLLY DAYS."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 13

Collision between barge Grey (in tow of motor tug Concrete) and motor vessel Jolly Days in Wandsworth Reach, River Thames - Concrete bound up river; Jolly Days bound down river- Contention by Concrete that she sounded one short blast on sighting the Jolly Days and that the Jolly Days sounded one short blast in reply- Porting by Jolly Days across course of Concrete-Hard-a-porting by Concrete followed by hard-a-starboarding to avoid Jolly Days-Whether Jolly Days sounded two short blasts before crossing -Respective duties of crossing and upcoming vessels under Thames Rules, Nos. 33 and 34.

ARCOS, LTD. v. LONDON & MIDLAND WHARFAGE & SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 18

Wharfingers-Charges-Claim by plaintiffs for repayment of charges alleged to have been overpaid-Plaintiffs' contention chat defendants' charges should have been based upon special schedule of rates quoted by defendants (non-Conference wharfingers) to plaintiffs- -Defendants' contention that their quotations were given upon the basis that a contract would be entered into between the parties under which the plaintiffs would guarantee to the defendants certain minimum business per annum - No contract in fact entered into or guarantee given- Plaintiffs charged by defendants at rates provided by schedule issued by P.L.A. - Lien - Charges paid by plaintiffs-Evidence of wharfingers' charges (London)-Reasonable rates.

CAWLEY v. LONDON & EDINBURGH SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 27

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, driver of lorry employed to receive reels of paper lowered by crane from top floor at wharf-Plaintiff struck by reel-Claim against defendants, employers of craneman- Whether accident caused or contributed to by plaintiff's own negligence.

THE "CHANNEL QUEEN."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 31

Collision between dumb barge New Enterprise (in tow of motor tug T.A.T.) and steamship Channel Queen in Limehouse Reach, River Thames- T.A.T. bound up river; Channel Queen bound down river-Place of collision-Thames Rules, No. 33.

COMPANIA NAVIERA VASCONGADA v. BRITISH & FOREIGN MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. [THE "GLORIA."]

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 35

Marine insurance-Loss of plaintiffs' vessel (owned by Spanish company) in Irish Sea on voyage from Larne to Port Talbot, in ballast-Vessel built in 1896-Claim under time policy- Defence that vessel was scuttled; alternatively, that she put to sea in an unseaworthy condition with the privity of the owners-Evidence that vessel stained damage to her starboard side in leaving quay at Larne; that she sprang a leak in her port side during the voyage owing to heavy weather; that she was prematurely abandoned (she was seen to be still afloat nine hours after her abandonment and it was probable that she could have been towed to port); that the logbooks were inadvertently lost during the abandonment of the vessel; that the vessel was over-insured (with the knowledge of the underwriters); that the plaintiffs were a company of good repute and had an excellent insurance record; that the vessel was classed under the highest class of the Bureau Veritas (although her annual survey was five months overdue); and that the plaintiffs had in practice carried out repairs in excess of those called for by the survey reports-Onus of proof-Privity of owners as to unseaworthiness-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 39 (5).

LOUIS DREYFUS & CO. v. PRODUCE BROKERS' NEW COMPANY (1924), LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 60

Sale of goods-Import duty-Sale of Indian groundnut cake, Bombay quality, c.i.f. London, on London Cattle Food Trade Association Contract Form No. 6-Goods entitled to free entry-Certificate of origin clause: "These goods are entitled at this date to free entry into or preferential duty in the United Kingdom. If the goods at time of shipment are entitled to free entry into or preferential duty in the United Kingdom the seller shall furnish a certificate of origin in the form valid at time of shipment, otherwise he shall be responsible for any duty or extra duty incurred by the buyers through the non-production of such certificate"-Refusal by Customs authorities to permit free entry owing to non-production of buyers' order- Duty paid by buyers-Obligations of sellers - Arbitration - Award that sellers should repay duty to buyers- Duty in fact repaid to buyers by Customs authorities subsequent to commencement of arbitration-Appeal by sellers to Appeal Tribunal - Case stated-Questions for opinion of Court: "(1) Whether the documents furnished by the sellers were a compliance with their obligations under the contract; (2) whether on the facts found and the true construction of the contract the sellers were liable to pay to the buyers the duty paid by the buyers to the Customs"-Construction of "Certificate of origin" clause -Application by sellers to remit award.

LEVINGER v. LICENSES & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 68

Motor insurance-Accident-Claim-Policy taken out with defendant company by plaintiff "carrying on or engaged in the business or profession of millinery" -Car insured while being used for "the business of the assured"- Plaintiff's business turned into limited company, of which plaintiff was chief shareholder-Judgment obtained against plaintiff company by third party for personal injuries arising out of accident-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified.

THE "CASTOR."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 71

Collision between British steamship Trevose and Swedish motor vessel Castor in Las Palms Bay-Both vessels bound to Las Palmas, the Trevose entering the harbour from the south and the Castor from the north - Vessels approaching starboard to starboard-Allegation by Trevose that Castor suddenly opened her red light when only two cables distant -Trevose's engines put half-speed ahead and her helm put hard-a-port- Failure of Castor to signal her change of course-Look-outs.

LATVIJAS BANKA (BANK OF LATVIA) v. ADAMS.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 82

Marine insurance-Practice-Affidavit of ship's papers-Claim by foreign corporation against English underwriter -Delay in prosecution of action- Action dismissed by learned Judge for want of prosecution-Appeal by plaintiffs against Judge's order.

THE "ALBATROSS."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 84

Negligence-Damage to vessel in berth- Obstruction - Plaintiffs' steamship Albatross berthed at first defendants' jetty-Vessel damaged by sitting on anchor put out from dredger, belonging to Port of London Authority, second defendants, engaged in operations off jetty-Respective duties of defendants-Notice of dredging operations issued by P.L.A.-Knowledge of plaintiffs and first defendants - Adequacy of notice-Statutory rights and duties of P.L.A. under Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920- Whether Albatross was properly moored.

PASSMORE v. VULCAN BOILER & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 92

Motor insurance-Policy covering business representative (P)-Car used for business purposes of insured and other representative (C) of same firm -Car driven by C-Accident owing to negligence of P-Injuries sustained by C-Damages awarded C against P- Claim by P to be indemnified under policy-Car insured while being used "for social domestic and pleasure purposes and . . . for the business of the insured"-Business described in policy as "carrying on or engaged in the business or profession of representative and no other for the purposes of this insurance"-Arbitrator's award that P was not covered in respect of such accident-Case stated.

CAMERON v. LONDON MIDLAND & SCOTTISH RAILWAY.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 95

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by passenger in embarking on defendants' steamship-Ankle fractured in slipping from gangway to deck of ship-Gangway not more than 3 in. above deck level-Contention by plaintiff that defendants failed properly to light gangway or ship; that they failed to take reasonable care to provide sufficient staff to assist the passengers; and failed to warn her (plaintiff) where the gangway terminated so as to enable her safely to descend to the deck-Evidence of precautions taken by defendants and that during 1935 30,000 passengers had embarked without accident along this gangway at night, in all states of the tide, with the lights as they were at the time of the accident.

"ESTLAND" (OWNERS) v. W. N. HILLAS & CO., LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 98

Bill of lading-Short delivery-Overdelivery -Claim for balance of freight by plaintiff shipowners against defendants, indorsees of 13 bills of lading covering timber (redwood and whitewood of various sizes)-Claim for balance of freight admitted by defendants -Counterclaim for short delivery -Evidence that there was short delivery under certain of the bills of lading and over-delivery under others -Short delivery balanced by over-delivery -Right of consignees to claim in respect of short delivery - "Quality, condition, and measure unknown"-Whether consignees entitled to retain over-deliveries merely upon payment of freight thereon.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR & DOCK BOARD v. TRADE INDEMNITY COMPANY.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 103

Contract - Guarantee - Construction of works by K & R on plaintiffs' dock premises at Workington-Instructions to persons tendering that contractor must make his own independent inquiries as to the site and the water therein, and that the plaintiffs would not be bound by any representation that their engineers or their employees or the plaintiffs' employees might make to the contractors, unless in writing by the clerk to the plaintiffs-Tender by K & R-K & R notified that tender would be accepted if they provided guarantee-Surety bond for £50,000 entered into by defendants guaranteeing K & R's performance of contract- Failure of K & R to complete contract -Work completed by plaintiffs-Claim under bond-Defence that bond was void on ground that there was misrepresentation by the plaintiffs as to water in the site and non-disclosure of facts leading up to the acceptance by the plaintiffs of K & R's tender- Plaintiffs' duty of disclosure-Whether contract bond one of guarantee or insurance -Distinction between contracts of guarantee and of insurance-Evidence of agreements for loans made by plaintiffs to K & R during course of contract work-Indebtedness of K & R to plaintiffs denoted by final certificate issued by plaintiffs' engineers, certifying that £78,785 was due-Sum including balance due upon loans for principal and interest-Whether certificate binding on defendants.

THE "KATE."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 120

Collision between steamship Framlington Court and barge Kate outside Greenland entrance to Surrey Commercial Docks-Framlington Court coming out stern first from Greenland lock entrance; Kate, one of flotilla of barges moored at entrance-Movement of flotilla across entrance at turn of tide -Whether movement unexpected-Evidence of master of tug in attendance on Framlington Court that flotilla was obstructing the entrance when the lock gates were opened.

THE "ROTORUA."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 125

Collision between barge Fawn (in tow of motor barge Colorcrete) and steamship Rotorua outside entrance to Royal Albert Dock-Colorcrete bound up-river; Rotorua lying angled in river waiting to enter dock-Endeavour by Colorcrete to pass port to port-Contention by Colorcrete that Rotorua was allowed to fall to the northward- Look-outs-Duty of Rotorua towards up-coming vessels-Failure of Colorcrete to indicate her proposed manoeuvres by the appropriate whistle signal-Contributory negligence.

JENSEN v. HOLLIS BROS. & CO., LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 133

Charter-party - Breach - Charter dated Aug. 30 between plaintiff (for the owners of a steamship "to be declared later" and "expected ready to load about end August") and defendants for carriage of part cargo of wood goods from Pernau and Riga to London-Charterers' option to cancel if vessel not ready to load at first loading port on or before Sept. 20- "Steamer has liberty to load wood goods and/or other cargo at same and/or other loading ports for same and/or other discharging ports for account of other charterers before and/or after loading goods under this charter"-Notice given by plaintiff on Sept. 7 that steamship K or substitute was expected ready to load on Sept. 14 -Objection taken by defendants on ground of insufficiency of notice- Notification by plaintiff on Sept. 12 that steamship M would perform charter, expected ready to load Sept. 20 -Arrival of M at first loading port on Sept. 27 - Charterers' option to cancel -Option not exercised-Arrival at London on Oct. 15-Claim by plaintiff for balance of freight, discharging expenses, &c., admitted-Counterclaim by defendants for cost of extra insurance and difference in market value of cargo owing to delay in delivery- "Expected ready to load about end August" - Waiver - £2 paid into Court by plaintiff to satisfy defendants' counterclaim.

THE "ALCYON."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 139

Collision between steamship Moreton Bay and motor vessel Alcyon in Erith Reach, River Thames-Moreton Bay bound down; Alcyon bound up river- Dispute as to whether Alcyon sounded one or two short blasts-Porting by Moreton Bay-Contention by Alcyon that Moreton Bay was proceeding at an excessive speed.

THE "ANGARA."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 143

Collision between Greek steamship Marietta and Russian steamship Angara in Canal Dock, Antwerp- Marietta bound down; Angara at anchor athwart the dock-Allegation by Marietta that Angara moved ahead while exhibiting her "at anchor" signal-Look-outs.

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

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 147

Wharfingers-Negligence-Customs duty- Warehousing of defendants' imported furs in plaintiffs' bonded warehouse- Furs stolen from warehouse-Plaintiffs compelled to pay Customs duty-Claim to recover from defendants amount of duty paid, also charges for landing and warehousing-Whether defendants responsible for payment of duty- Counterclaim for value of furs lost owing to plaintiffs' alleged negligence -Evidence of precautions taken by plaintiffs - Whether plaintiffs protected by London Wharfingers Clause- Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, Sects. 82, 85, 87.

McPHAIL v. LONDON GRAVING DOCK COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 152

Shipbuilding Regulations-Means of access -Breach-Personal injuries sustained by holder-up engaged in repair work on vessel in dock-Fall from propeller shaft tunnel-Contention that defendants (plaintiff's employers) were guilty of breach of Regulation 1 of the Shipbuilding Regulations, which provided that "safe means of access shall be provided to all parts of the ship to which persons employed may be required to proceed in the course of their employment" - Obligations of employers under Regulations - Damages-Plaintiff permanently injured, with limited earning capacity.

HERMAN JENNINGS & CO., LTD. v. PENINSULAR & ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO.; GREIDINGER & WERNER, LTD. v. SAME.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 155

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (eggs)- Whether tainted by wine-Shipment in defendants' steamship from Adelaide to England-Eggs (11,000 cases) stored in refrigerated holds (Nos. 4 and 5 lower 'tween decks)-Wine in barrels stored in No. 4 upper 'tween deck-Leakage- Percolation through into No. 4 lower 'tween deck-Several cases in No. 4 lower 'tween deck wine-stained-Claim by plaintiffs in respect of 500 cases stored in No. 5 lower 'tween deck-Refrigerating system considered - Inference to be drawn from fact that claims had been made only in respect of 2000 cases; that only a portion of the cases actually stained was the subject of a claim; and that there was no evidence of a greater proportion of taint in No. 4 lower 'tween deck than in No. 5-Expert evidence as to origin of taint.

THE "VALVERDA."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 161

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 - 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, of 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- Validity of agreement-Whether contrary to public policy.

THOMSON v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 167

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 bags 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 iustified 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-Contention by shipowner that he was entitled to the return of the bags or their value.

CROXFORD AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. NORMAN v. GRESHAM FIRE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 171

Motor insurance-Road Traffic Act, 1934- Third parties.

(1) Claim against insurers by dependants of person killed in accident involving assured's lorry-Accident on June 9, 1934-Policy repudiated by insurers on July 12, 1934, on ground of non-disclosure-Action brought by dependants against assured on Aug. 3, 1934-Judgment obtained on Feb. 6, 1935.

(2) Plaintiff injured in accident on Sept. 13, 1934, involving lorry belonging to T., Ltd., and alleged to be covered by insurers during 1934- Action brought against assured on Oct. 26, 1934-Judgment obtained on Feb. 12, 1935-Liquidation of T., Ltd., on Apr. 1, 1935-Dispute as to whether contract of insurance was entered into between T., Ltd., and the insurers covering the lorry at the time of the accident-Non-disclosure.

Liability of insurers-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 36, 38-Effect of Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10, which came into force on Jan. 1, 1935-Sub-ss. (1), (2), (3).

THE "BUCCINUM."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 183

Collision between British steamship Cerinthus and Norwegian steamship Buccinum in English Channel off East Goodwin Light-vessel - Cerinthus bound down Channel; Buccinum bound up Channel-Whether vessels on opposite courses or on crossing courses with Buccinum the stand-on vessel- Starboarding by Cerinthus, followed by hard-a-starboarding and full speed astern-Porting by Buccinum, followed by hard-a-porting - Contention by Buccinum that Cerinthus failed to indicate her alteration of course by the appropriate whistle signal-Look-out.

SHIPSEY v. BRITISH & SOUTH AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY. (THE "HERMIONE.")

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 188

Irish Free State-Practice-Service of writ out of jurisdiction-Vessel belonging to defendants (English company) struck by enemy mine and brought into Waterford Harbour- Sinking of vessel in harbour-Wreck abandoned by owners-Dispersal by Waterford Harbour Commissioners- Claim by Commissioners against defendants for cost of lighting, buoying and dispersal of wreck-Provision of Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1904 (confirming Waterford Harbour Order, 1904), that "the Commissioners may recover from such owner the expense if the Commissioners think fit of lighting and buoying such wreck or obstruction and of removing dispersing or destroying such wreck or obstruction by means of explosives or by such other means or method as the Commissioners may consider expedient"-Whether claim under Act (local and personal) arose out of contract made or entered into, or out of a tort committed, within the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State-Order of Hanna, J., giving Commissioners leave to serve writ out of jurisdiction -Appeal by defendants against order on ground that no cause of action was disclosed in respect of which the Court had jurisdiction to make such an order -Classification of causes of action- Suggestion that every cause of action must be founded either on contract or tort-Discussion of the obligations imposed by "local and personal" Act- Whether creating contract between promoters and the public or any individual - No duty of removing wreck imposed upon defendants at common law or by legislature-R.S.C. (Irish Free State), Order 6, r. 2, Order 11, r. 1 (f).

LOCKER & WOOLF, LTD. v. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 211

Fire insurance-Non-disclosure-Proposal form-Insurance of premises of L & W, Ltd. (plaintiffs), with defendants and other insurers - Fire - Claim - "(2) Have you ever suffered loss by fire? Yes, £5, Sea. (4) Has this or any other insurance of yours been declined by any other company? No"-Evidence that W, engaged in business on his own account, had a fire in 1919; that L & W, when trading in partnership in 1930, had applied to the N Co. for a policy covering their motor vehicles, and that the N Co. had declined such proposal on the ground of non-disclosure- Materiality-Moral hazard-Sale of salvage upon instructions of assessors engaged by insurers-Sale unopposed by defendants-Whether amounting to waiver-"The company [defendants] . . . may, without thereby incurring any liability, and without diminishing the right of the company to rely upon any conditions of this policy, enter, take or keep possession of the building or premises where the destruction or damage has happened, and may take possession of or require to be delivered to them any of the property hereby insured and may keep possession of and deal with such property for all reasonable purposes and in any reasonable manner"-Repudiation of liability by defendants on ground of non-disclosure -Arbitration-Award in favour of defendants-Case stated.

THE "CLAN COLQUHOUN."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 221

Towage-Contract-Collision between tug B belonging to Port of London Authority (plaintiffs) and defendants' steamship Clan Colquhoun in Tilbury Main Dock-Plaintiffs' tugs S and B engaged to tow vessel from lock to berth - S towing ahead - B manoeuvring to make fast-Vessel using her engines-Following notice exhibited on vessel: "Notice. Twin screws. Keep clear of blades"-Tug struck by vessel's starboard propeller -Claim by P.L.A. in respect of damage to tug-Counterclaim by defendants in respect of damage to vessel-Provision of Port of London Dock By-Laws, No. 19, that "No person shall work, or caused to be worked, the propelling engines of any ship in the dock for any purpose except with the previous consent of the Dockmaster, and at such time and place and in such manner as he shall approve. Penalty £5. Such consent is only given (if at all) on the terms that the person on whose behalf the application for the same is made will be responsible for all damage caused by working such engines and will indemnify and save harmless the Authority and its officers against all claims in respect of such damage"- Evidence as to universal practice of vessels navigating through dock to use their engines to assist in towage and that no complaint about such use had been made by P.L.A.-Applicability of by-law-Tugs engaged under towage contract providing (inter alia): (1) that the towage must be deemed to have commenced when the tow rope was passed to or by the tug and to have ended when the tow rope was finally slipped; (2) that during the towage the master and crews of the tugs ceased to be under the control of the P.L.A. and became subject to the orders and control of the master of the vessel towed; (3) that the P.L.A. were bound before and at the beginning of the towage to exercise due diligence properly to man the tug; and (4) that "the owner or owners of and/or the person or persons interested in the ship vessel or craft so being towed or transported hereby agree and undertake to bear and pay for any loss of or damage to any of the Port Authority's property (including the tug or tugs engaged in such towage or transport) or premises occurring in the course of and in connection with the towage or transport which may arise from or be occasioned by the following causes perils or other things, viz.: perils of the seas rivers or navigation, collisions . . . whether such causes perils or other things have been caused or contributed to by the negligence default or error of judgment of any officers or servants of the Port Authority whatsoever. . . ."-Whether towage had commenced at time of accident - Interpretation of clause where two tugs are employed-Temporary master in charge of tug B- Whether tug properly manned.

THE "SOLACE."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 229

Negligent navigation-Excessive wash- Damage sustained by plaintiff's motor cruiser Wendy II moored to bank in Oulton Dyke - Violent rocking of Wendy II at her moorings-Overturning of paraffin stove resulting in a fire causing damage to after part of vessel -Allegation by plaintiff that defendant's motor boat Solace was navigated past the Wendy II at an excessive speed, creating an excessive wash and causing the rocking complained of -Onus of proof-Evidence of independent witnesses as to excessive speed of Solace-Contention by defendant that paraffin stove was unstable and that the Wendy II was also unstable.

THE "PRINSES JULIANA."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 234

Collision between Danish motor vessel Esbjerg and Dutch steamship Prinses Juliana off entrance to Harwich Harbour -Esbjerg outward bound; Prinses Juliana inward bound - Prinses Juliana, in charge of pilot, navigating under hard-a-starboard helm to enter harbour-Pilot's manoeuvres countermanded by master-Order given by master to hard-a-port-Whether risk of collision if Prinses Juliana had kept her course and speed under hard-a-starboard helm-Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board By-laws, 1929, Art. 8: "A steam vessel navigating against the tide shall, on approaching points or sharp bends in the fairway, ease her speed and if necessary stop and wait before rounding so as to allow any vessel navigating with the tide to round and pass clear of her"- Flood tide-Duty of Esbjerg-Collision Regulations, Art. 25. Evidence-Report of pilot of defendants' vessel to Trinity House in compliance with their rules and by-laws-Pilot not called by defendants, but subpoenaed to attend by plaintiffs-Whether report admissible-Admissibility of declaration of agents against their principals.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, LTD. v. GUARDIAN ASSURANCE CO., LTD., AND J. RUSTOMJI.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 247

Fire insurance-Loss of wheat and wheat products stored in godowns insured with defendant insurance company- Property mortgaged by owner to bank as security for loan-Policies assigned to bank - Claim by owner and bank on basis that insurance was joint insurance - Contention by insurance company that claim was exaggerated and fraudulent and that they were entitled to repudiate liability by reason of provision in policy that "if the claim be in any respect fraudulent or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or anyone acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy . . . all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited"-Appeal by bank from decision of High Court (Lahore) reversing lower Court decree in assured's favour-Inference to be drawn from evidence as to financial position of owner, the circumstances of the fire, and the amount of goods stored.

HORN v. BLUE STAR LINE, LTD., AND THAMES STEVEDORING COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 261

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by workman on board ship-Fall from lower 'tween deck into hold-Allegation that hatchway was inadequately guarded in that lifelines had been removed-Vessel being discharged in dock-Plaintiff and other workmen in employ of C I Co. engaged in work in connection with cold storage insulation -Stevedores and ship's company also on board-Stevedores and shipowners joined as defendants-Onus of proof-Contributory negligence.

MIDWOOD v. GRAIG SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., AND MERSEY PORTS STEVEDORING COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 266

Bill of lading-Short delivery (five bales of cotton)-Claim by plaintiffs, assignees of bills of lading in respect of 6797 bales (part of whole cargo), against shipowners and master porters (also acting as stevedores)-Evidence of loading at Corpus Christi, Houston and Galveston, and of discharge at Liverpool-Method of tallying.

McLEOD v. HASTIE & SONS, LTD., AND ANOTHER.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 269

Seaman-Personal injuries sustained by mate of steam trawler-Breakdown of steam winch during voyage-Decision of master to use hand windlass to get trawl on board-Windlass in rusty condition - Engineers directed by master to put windlass in working order-Failure of engineers to notice that pawl was still rusted and did not engage with ratchet-Sudden reversal of windlass owing to strain, handle striking down mate-Claim against shipowners and against master - Common employment-Alleged failure by owners to provide windlass in proper condition and fit for use- Whether rusted condition at beginning of voyage constituted unseaworthiness -Further contention by pursuer that master was negligent in that he failed to superintend and inspect the engineers' work; that the master, by reason of a possible future transfer to him of shares in the ship, was in partnership with the shipowners, and that therefore the defenders could not avail themselves of the defence of common employment-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 458 (1).

CHURCHILL & SIM v. GODDARD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 279

Principal and agent-Sale of goods-Bills of exchange-Timber brokers-Sale of timber by foreign sellers to defendant, plaintiffs acting as del credere agents of sellers-"Payment to be made on receipt of and in exchange for shipping documents by approved acceptances of sellers' or authorised agents' drafts payable in London at four months from the date of bill of lading, or at buyers' option, in cash less 212 per cent. discount at three days' sight payable in London"-Sellers paid by plaintiffs against shipping documents-Documents forwarded to defendant-Bills of exchange drawn by plaintiffs upon defendant and accepted by him-Subsequent claim by defendant to reject timber as not being good tender under contract of sale- Objection upheld on arbitration-Bills dishonoured by defendant-Right of plaintiffs to claim against defendant as acceptor of bills-Whether acceptance of hills amounted to new contract -Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, Sects. 2, 27 (1), 30 (1), 38 (1), 54 (1).

THE "PASS OF LENY."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 288

Negligence-Damage at berth-Breach of warranty-Plaintiffs' vessel moored at first defendants' jetty (Boston, Lincs.) -Vessel chartered by second defendants to proceed to Boston or so near thereunto as she could safely get (safely aground) and there load a cargo of petroleum-Slipping of vessel into river-Vessel and berth damaged- Loss of freight-Claim by plaintiffs against first and second defendants for alleged breach of warranty-Counterclaim by first defendants for damage to berth-Whether plaintiffs negligent in mooring vessel slightly angled to berth-Cause of accident.

THE "CROSSBILL."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 295

Collision between sailing barge Ronald West and steamship Crossbill in River Orwell - Ronald West at anchor; Crossbill bound up river-Dispute as to whether Ronald West was exhibiting regulation anchor light-Condition of lam-Position of wick-Evidence of oil shortage-Whether Crossbill was keeping a good look-out-Collision Regulations, Art. 11.

THE "ETHEL RADCLIFFE."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 299

Practice - Costs - Damage to tug - Plaintiffs' tug S R engaged under contract to tow defendants' steamship E R-Tug E also engaged-Alleged collision between tugs-Claim by S R to be indemnified by E R-Contention by E R that no such collision occurred -Decision of learned Judge that S R was entitled to indemnity-Damages subsequently agreed between parties at £270 - Plaintiffs' delay in giving notice of damage and of intention to claim.

THE "SHELL MEX 1."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 300

Collision between steamship Goole and motor vessel Shell Mex 1 in Hull Roads, River Humber-Goole (towing lighter) bound up river; Shell Mex 1 at anchor in Roads with two other vessels-Goole turned under starboard helm above anchored vessels to drop her tow-Goole then manoeuvred below anchored vessels, turning again under starboard helm to resume her voyage up river-Turning signals sounded during her manoeuvres-Shell Mex 1, in the meantime, under way and proceeding down river-Whether Goole turned at proper time-Signals-Look-outs- Humber Rules, 1910, No. 14.

BUCKERFIELDS, LTD. v. SMITH.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 304

Contract-Terms-Sale of bran c.i.f. Hull by plaintiffs to defendant-Freight payable on arrival-Vessel lost on voyage-Total loss (including insurance on freight) paid by insurers to buyer- Bought and sold notes exchanged- Bought note providing (inter alia): "Insurance W.A. (or 'all risks') . . . All other terms as per those of the London Cattle Food Trade Association Contracts"-Contention by plaintiffs that the terms of the London Cattle Food Trade Association General Contract No. 1 were incorporated except where in conflict with the terms of the bought and sold notes; and that the defendant was entitled under Clause 15 of the General Contract No. 1 to retain only an amount equivalent to the invoice value of the bran plus 2 per cent. and was bound to account to the plaintiffs for the balance-Intention of parties-Course of business-Held, that the terms of General Contract No. 1 (except where irreconcilable with the terms of the bought and sold notes) were incorporated into the contract between the parties and that the buyers were entitled under Clause 15 to the sum claimed.

A/S. RENDAL v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 309

Charter-party-Ice clause-Notice of claim clause-Damage to vessel by ice on voyage from Leningrad to Sarpsborg- Demurrage at Sarpsborg-Claim by shipowners against charterers, Arcos, Ltd., for Exportles, Moscow, for damage sustained by vessel in ice- "Charterers to supply steamer with icebreaker assistance, if required by the captain, to enable her to enter and/or leave the port of loading, free of all expenses to owners. Captain or steamer's agents to notify the captain of the port in due time of readiness to enter and/or leave the port of loading. Icebreaker assistance to be rendered within 48 hours after steamer's arrival at the ice edge or readiness to leave the port of loading. Any time lost in waiting for icebreaker assistance beyond 48 hours after readiness to proceed to be for charterers' account"-Duty of charterers under ice clause-Vessel taken out in convoy-Inadequacy of icebreaker assistance-Notice of claim clause: "Notice of any claim under this charter or under any bill of lading given hereunder must be given within 12 months of the date of the vessel's arrival at final port of discharge, otherwise all claims shall be deemed to be waived"-Notice of demurrage claim given to Exportles - Notification by Exportles to plaintiffs to apply to Russian Trade Delegation of Norway- Position of Russian Trade Delegation and Exportles considered - Whether Russian Trade Delegation authorised to accept claim for ice damage and whether claim made in time-Constitution of U.S.S.R.-Judicial notice.

BOAG v. STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 320

Marine insurance - Subrogation - Cargo insured with defendants at full value at date of policy-Increased value policy subsequently taken out with plaintiffs without knowledge of defendants -Total loss of cargo-Both policies paid in full-Letters of subrogation given by cargo-owners to both insurers-Salved value of cargo less than amount paid by defendants under their policy-Right of plaintiffs to proportionate share of salvage- Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 79.

NAAMLOOZE VENNOOTSCHAP HANDELS - EN - TRANSPORT MAATSCHAPPIJ "VULCAAN" v. J. LUDWIG MOWINCKELS REDERI A/S.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 324

Charter-party - Hire - Overpayment - Claim by charterers-Mutual mistake- Breach of warranty-Charter of respondents' vessels built for hire on time charter to claimants-Accounts based on deadweight carrying capacity- Shortage of capacity owing to style of construction and to subsequent strengthening of structure for carriage of claimants' cargo - Charterers' claim made in respect of four periods: (1) 1912 to outbreak of war; (2) during war; (3) after war; (4) subsequently, when both vessels operated under lump sum charters-Submission to arbitration -Award that claims in respect of the first three periods were barred by the Statute of Limitations and that as regards the fourth period the vessels which were to be of "about 11,185 tons carrying capacity," were of about that capacity - Case stated - Whether Statute of Limitations applied to arbitrations-Date of commencement of arbitration-Vessels surrendered to shipowners during war period and run by shipowners and charterers in partnership-Applicability of Statute of Limitations where it is sought to reopen partnership account-Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 16 (4).

LAMPSON BROS., LTD. v. LILLEY & CO.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 331

Stevedores-Discharge of defendants' ship loaded with cargo of sawn timber from Archangel-Claim by plaintiff stevedores for damages consequent upon time alleged to have been lost in discharge-Provision in contract for standing by for rain - Plaintiffs' contention that delay occurred owing to incorrect stowage plan and that there should be implied in the contract a term that cargo should be accurately stowed-Evidence of delay owing to failure of steam.

IZZARD v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 335

Motor insurance-Third party-Passenger -Insurance of lorry with defendant company under "Commercial Motor Vehicle Policy"-"Is passenger risk to be covered? No"-"Warranted used only for general haulage and other trades"-"The company will indemnify the insured against liability at law for compensation and claimant's costs and expenses in respect of: Death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of any vehicle described in the schedule. Provided always that the company shall not be liable in respect of . . . (b) Death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment; (c) Death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from such vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises"-Contract between insured and I B Ltd. for haulage work and conveyance of workmen -I employed by I B Ltd. under contract of employment-Conveyance of I by insured lorry-Accident causing death of I-Plaintiff, dependant of I, awarded judgment against insured- Bankruptcy of insured - Claim by plaintiff against defendant company under Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930-Whether I being carried "by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment" within meaning of proviso - Arbitration - Award in favour of plaintiff-Case stated - Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (1) (b) (ii).

TYNEDALE STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 341

Charter-party-Cesser of hire-Discharging expenses - Vessel bound from Archangel to Liverpool, laden with timber, including deck cargo-Shifting of deck cargo following list in heavy weather off Liverpool, foremast and part deck cargo subsequently falling overboard - Delay in discharge - Forward winches out of action-Hire of floating derricks to discharge forward part of deck cargo-Cost of steam cranage and derrick barges- Whether incurred by charterers at implied request of shipowners within provisions of Clause 8 - "(2) Owners to provide and pay for all provisions and wages, for insurance of the steamer, for all deck and engine-room stores and maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery during service. Owners to provide one winchman per hatch. If further winchmen required, or if stevedore refuses to work with the crew, charterers to provide and pay qualified winchmen from land. (3) . . . The steamer to be fitted and maintained with winches, derricks, wheels and ordinary runners capable of handling lifts up to three tons. . . . (8) . . . Captain to be under the orders of charterers as regards employment, agency, or other arrangements. . . . (10) In the event of loss of time caused by drydocking or by other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of steamer, or by deficiency of men or owners' stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to hull or other accident preventing the working of the steamer and lasting more than 24 consecutive hours, hire to cease from commencement of such loss of time until steamer is again in efficient state to resume service. Should steamer be driven into port, or to anchorage by stress of weather, or in the event of steamer trading to shallow harbours, rivers or ports with bars or in case of accident to cargo, causing detention to steamer, time so lost and expenses incurred shall be for charterers' account, even if caused through fault or want of due diligence by owners' servants. (12) Owners only to be responsible for delay in delivery of the steamer or for delay during the currency of this charter and for loss or damage to goods on board, if such delay or loss has been caused by want of due diligence on the part of owners or their manager, in making steamer seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of owners or their manager. Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damage or delay whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default by owners' servants" -Arbitration-Case stated-Questions for opinion of Court: "(a) Whether upon the true construction of the charter and upon the facts as herein found, the shipowners are entitled to hire for the vessel in respect of the time occupied in discharge; (b) whether the additional costs of discharge, etc., are for account of shipowners or charterers."

BOANAS v. "BARRWHIN" (OWNERS).

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 351

Workmen's compensation-Drunkenness- Death of seaman-Evidence of unfitness to perform his duties owing to intoxicated condition and that he fell overboard while in that condition- Whether an accident arising out of and in the course of man's employment.

JONES v. CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 353

Workmen's compensation - Appeal - Accident to riveter-Allegation that ear drum was pierced by molten metal, causing neurasthenia - Finding of learned County Court Judge that symptoms were not due to alleged accident, and that there was no incapacity from an accident arising out of and in the course of the man's employment.

THE "EISENACH."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 354

Salvage-Services rendered by salvage tugs Lady Duncannon, Simson and Goliath to German steamship Eisenach off Dover-Eisenach badly damaged forward in collision with H.M.S. Ramillies-Danger of Eisenach drifting on to Goodwin Sands-Bad weather- Towing of Eisenach to Dover Harbour by Lady Duncannon and Simson- Towage assistance also given by Goliath when entering harbour-Cost of maintaining tugs-Assessment of value of Eisenach-Market value-Difficulty of replacement by purchase in open market owing to shortage of foreign exchanges in Germany-Evidence of sale after repair-Price in marks-Dispute as to rate of exchange-Comparative cost of building similar vessel in Germany and in England.

THE "HOMEFIRE" AND THE "RIO."

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 367

Collision between dumb barge Henry and steamship Homefire near Cannon Street Railway Bridge, River Thames -Henry driving up river; Homefire bound down river-Tug Rio (towing barges) also bound up river-Flood tide-Henry passed by Rio at London Bridge, Rio navigating to pass through northern arch of Cannon Street Bridge -Homefire navigating to pass through same arch-Stopping of Homefire's engines above Southwark Bridge on sighting Rio-Port helm signals exchanged -Homefire's engines put slow ahead-Porting by Homefire to avoid Rio, followed by hard-a-starboarding to avoid collision with northern abutment of arch-Subsequent collision with southern abutment of arch, followed by collision with Henry- Whether Homefire justified in assuming that the Rio, having sounded a port helm signal, would go through the middle arch of Cannon Street Bridge -Whether practicable for Rio to go through middle arch-Thames By-laws, Rule 36 (b).

HOLLIDAY v. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 54 Ll.L.Rep. 373

Fire insurance-Renewal of policy-Insurance of claimant's property with respondent company-Loss by fire- Contention by respondents that property was not covered as the policy had not been renewed-Course of business between parties-Claimant appointed agent of respondent company -Claimant debited in respondents' books with premiums due and credited with commission-Evidence of credit given to claimant for settlement of balances due-Expiry date of policy June 20, 1934-Notice given by claimant to respondents' inspector to renew policies as they fell due- Renewal notices sent from time to time -Requests by respondents for settlement of balance due disregarded by claimant-Fire on Oct. 21, 1934- Arbitration-Award in claimant's favour-Case stated-Whether policy automatically determined at expiry of days of grace.

Lloyd's Law Reports