i-law.com

ALEXANDER KENNEDY v. THE KING.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 1

Arson - Appeal against conviction - Explosion and fire in appellant's shop in Colombo - Extensive damage to structure-Contents (boots and shoes and skins suitable for manufacture of shoes) destroyed-Alleged misdirection of jury-Inference to be drawn from circumstances of explosion and fire- Evidence of probable cause-Appellant's financial embarrassment-Doubt as to existence of large stock of skins alleged by appellant to have been destroyed - Composition of jury - Alleged partiality-Appellant's ignorance of the fact that certain jurors were employed by firms in some way connected with the insurance companies on risk-Whether the fact that there might have been material for a successful challenge was sufficient of itself to set aside an adverse verdict.

HATTON v. ELLERMAN & PAPAYANNI LINES, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 18

Docks Regulations, 1934-Safe means of access-Breach of statutory duty-Defendants' vessel bunkering at coal hoist-Provision of ladder in compliance with Regulation 9 (b)-Seaman, returning to ship, killed by fall from ladder-Claim by widow-"9. If a ship is lying at a wharf or quay for the purpose of loading or unloading or coaling, there shall be safe means of access for the use of persons employed at such times as they have to pass from the ship to the shore or from the shore to the ship as follows:-(a) Where reasonably practicable the ship's accommodation ladder or gangway or a similar construction. . . . (b) In other cases a ladder of sound material and adequate length which shall be properly secured to prevent slipping" - Whether reasonably practicable to have provided the ship's gangway- S.R. & O., 1934, No. 279.

THE KING v. RAILWAY ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY. (EX PARTE SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION.)

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 22

Railways - Rating - Revised Railway Valuation Roll-Draft roll providing that total rateable value of railway company should be settled at £2,250,000 -Representation made to Railway Assessment Authority by Southampton Corporation (as rating authority) complaining of apportionment of £101,520 to Southampton Docks-Contentions that the apportionment of the dock undertaking was insufficient, full regard not having been paid to all material considerations including the net receipts derived from the hereditament and the relative value of the land and buildings now occupied; and that of the total annual value of the undertaking that portion of the Southern Railway allocated to Southampton was less than a fair apportionment and that the total net value was incorrect-Refusal by Railway Assessment Authority to give effect to representation - Appeal by the railway company against cumulo - Reduction by H.L. (affirming R. & C. C.) to £2,180,000-Southampton Corporation notified that assessment of Southampton Docks was reduced to £100,000 - No appeal brought in statutory time by Southampton Corporation -Further appeal brought by railway company against cumulo - Cumulo reduced by H.L. (affirming R. & C. C.) to £1,077,131-Railway Assessment Authority directed to make requisite adjustments-Value of each constituent undertaking (including Southampton Docks) reduced in same proportion as cumulo had been reduced - Method of apportionment adopted by Railway Assessment Authority - Jurisdiction - Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, Sects. 6, 9, 10.

THE "MULBERA."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 31

Negligence-Sinking of plaintiffs' barge in Royal Albert Dock-Barge in attendance upon defendants' steamship Mulbera-Barge, having loaded part cargo from the Mulbera, shifted by defendants' servants to a position inside the stem and port bow of the Mulbera to load further cargo-Barge made fast by defendants' servants after loading -Barge found sunk next morning -Unascertained cause of loss-Contention by plaintiffs that barge had been left in unsafe position by defendants and that she was squeezed between the quay and the Mulbera-Whether sinking raised prima facie case of negligence against defendants-Condition of barge-Alleged unseaworthiness- Onus of proof.

BANK OF ATHENS v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. (THE "EFTYCHIA.")

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 37

Marine insurance-Scuttling-Stranding of Greek steamship Eftychia off Cape San Vito, Sicily-Claim by mortgagees to recover as for constructive total loss -Defence: that vessel was intentionally stranded by her master with the connivance of her owner-Onus of proof-Circumstances of casualty- Evidence of master that the stranding was due to error in navigation- Master's knowledge of position of shoal on which vessel stranded-Gross error in estimation of distance from Cape San Vito lighthouse-Misstatement of ship's draught by master to salvors, causing delay in refloating- Evidence of owner's financial embarrassment -Indebtedness to mortgagees -Owner's untruthful evidence in witness-box-Evidence that running of vessel had been an unprofitable enterprise.

THE "NAVEMAR."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 63

International law-Confiscation by Spanish Republic of Spanish vessel in American waters-Libel for possession brought by owners-Contention on behalf of Spanish Republic that when libel was filed, the vessel was in the possession of the Spanish Republic and subject to its direction and control for use in the national public service, and that accordingly the vessel was not subject to process in the American Courts without the consent of the Spanish Republic and in the absence of such consent was immune from any such process-Vessel on time charter to American corporation, charter at time of alleged seizure still having six months to run-Edict of Spanish Republic authorising seizure on their behalf-Evidence of indorsements on the ship's roll and ship's register by Spanish Government representatives at Rosario and Buenos Aires, in accordance with edict, before arrival in American waters-Forcible seizure by crew on arrival in American waters -Effect - Legality - Jurisdiction of American Courts.

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

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 69

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) December, 1912, to August, 1914; (2) August, 1914, to February, 1921; (3) February, 1921, to July, 1926; (4) July, 1926, to June, 1931, 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).

R. SILCOCK & SONS, LTD. v. MARITIME LIGHTERAGE CO. (J. R. FRANCIS & CO.), LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 78

Unseaworthiness-Barge-Employment of defendants' barge for carriage of plaintiffs' cargo of bran from steamship in Victoria Dock to Silvertown- Barge loaded alongside on Aug. 7 and 8 and taken by tug to plaintiffs' berth at Silvertown, arriving there at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 9-Discovery at 5 30 a.m. that barge had taken in considerable quantity of water and that cargo was seriously damaged - Barge engaged under terms of Thames Lighterage Clause-Contention by plaintiffs that vessel was unseaworthy at commencement of loading - Contention by defendants that barge must have sustained damage at plaintiffs' berth- Onus of proof-Evidence of probable rate of leakage.

BOAG v. STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 83

Marine insurance-Subrogation - Cargo insured with company at full value at the date of policy-Increased value policy subsequently taken out with Lloyd's underwriters without knowledge of insurance company-Stranding of vessel-Total loss of insured cargo by jettison-Both policies paid in full-Letters of subrogation given by cargo-owners to both insurers- General average recovery by insured cargo-owners less than amount paid by insurance company under their policy-Right of Lloyd's underwriters to proportionate share of recovery-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 79: "(1) Where the insurer pays for a total loss, either of the whole, or in the case of goods of any apportionable part, of the subject-matter insured, he thereupon becomes entitled to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject-matter so paid for, and he is thereby subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of that subject-matter as from the time of the casualty causing the loss."

WYATT v. GUILDHALL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 90

Motor insurance - Third party risks - Policy covering "use for social domestic and pleasure purposes and use by insured in person in connection with his business or profession as stated in the schedule hereto excluding use for hiring. . . ."-Passenger carried for reward-Evidence that insured was himself making same journey and that carriage of passenger for reward was an isolated transaction-Accident- Passenger injured - Judgment recovered by passenger against insured unsatisfied-Refusal by insurance company to indemnify insured-Passenger's right to indemnity from company -Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (1)- Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10 (1).

REDERI A/B. "UNDA" v. W. W. BURDON & CO., LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 95

Charter-patty-Shifting boards-Cost of provision, etc.-"(1) That the said owners agree to let, and the said charterers agree to hire the said steamship. . . . she being then newly painted, tight, staunch, strong, with clean and clear holds, and every way fitted to carry bulk and general cargoes . . . (4) Owners shall provide and pay for . . . all stores, and maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery, and equipment for and during the service with dunnage, mats, shifting boards (as far as on board) . . . (5) Charterers shall provide and pay for coals (except for cooking and heating), canal dues, port charges, pilotages, agencies, commissions, expenses of loading and unloading cargoes, and all other charges and expenses whatsoever appertaining to the cargo, except those before stated" -Vessel loaded with wheat in bulk- Owners obliged under Swedish law to fit shifting boards - Whether cost appertained to ship or cargo-Cost paid by shipowners without prejudice -Claim to recover from charterers.

THE "KAMENETZ PODOLSK."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 101

Collision between British steamship Gleniffer and Russian steamship Kamenetz Podolsk in Gravesend Reach, River Thames-Gleniffer, laden, inward bound; Kamenetz Podolsk, light, outward bound - Dispute as to place of collision-Whether to north or south of mid-channel-Evidence of manoeuvres taken by each vessel before collision- Stopping of Kamenetz Podolsk to pick up sea pilot-Helm action taken by Gleniffer to avoid small craft crossing her bows-Duty of vessels under Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 33.

THE "HOMEFIRE."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 110

Collision between steamship Peregrine and Homefire in Gravesend Reach, River Thames - Peregrine bound down; Homefire, originally bound down ahead of Peregrine, manoeuvring up and across river after turning under starboard helm - Weather foggy in patches-Ebb tide-Intention of Homefire to stem tide until weather cleared -Cross-signals sounded, the Homefire indicating her intention to pass port to port and the Peregrine her intention to pass starboard to starboard- Whether special circumstances making necessary a departure from the rule laying down a port to port passing- Dispute as to the positions of vessels on sighting each other-Duty of vessel crossing river-Manoeuvres by Homefire on sighting Peregrine-"Vessel navigating against the tidal stream" -Port of London River By-laws, 1914, Rules 33, 34-Port of London River (Amendment) By-laws, 1934, Rule 4 (a).

HOVIS, LTD. v. UNITED BRITISH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. (THE "SINNINGTON COURT.")

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 117

Bill of lading-Bad stowage-Benefit of insurance clause-Damage to cargo of wheat germ in sacks-Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners - Cargo shipped under bill of lading incorporating Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910-Delivery mildewed and caked and tainted with resin-Perils of the sea-Inherent vice-Evidence that cargo was stowed in hold with Douglas fir boards- Plaintiffs' claim under policy on cargo paid by insurers-Policy providing that insurance should not inure to the benefit of any carrier and that insurers should not be liable in respect of goods shipped under bill of lading containing a benefit of insurance clause-Right of shipowners to rely on benefit of insurance clause by way of set-off or counterclaim - Illegality - Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, Sect. 4.

THE "TRENTINO."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 121

Collision between Greek steamship Nagos and British steamship Trentino in Sea Reach, River Thames-Plaintiffs' vessel Nagos at anchor, heading up river; defendants' vessel Trentino bound down-Dispute as to position of Nagos -Whether Nagos showing efficient anchor lights-Onus of proof-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 14.

BROWN AND ANOTHER v. A/S. CHR. CHRISTENSENS REDERI.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 127

Stevedores-Contract-Agreement by plaintiffs to discharge timber from defendants' steamship Torsol at certain rate per standard (slightly less than normal rate)-Vessel holed aft by collision in River Thames and beached-Cargo flooded-Subsequent arrival at Surrey Commercial Docks after temporary repairs-Discharge commenced-Claim by plaintiff's stevedores to be paid "danger money" on account of condition of vessel-Reasonable apprehension of danger-Dispute as to the stevedoring rates submitted to local committee of organisation set up to deal with such matters-Committee's view that men were entitled to "danger money" - Discharge stopped - Plaintiffs' cable to defendants: "Torsol in dispute with union owing collision our rate now cost of discharge plus 10 per cent. ship stopped awaiting instructions"-Reply by defendants: "Torsol agree hurry discharging coming London Monday will arrange everything satisfactory" - Discharge recommenced-Claim by plaintiffs for balance of discharging expenses, based on actual cost of discharge, incurred after recommencement-Whether claim failed for lack of consideration- Counterclaim by defendants for damages for detention.

PARK ROYAL COACHWORKS, LTD., AND H. YAGER INVESTMENT TRUST, LTD. v. PARK ROYAL STADIUM, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 137

Fire insurance-Increase in premiums- Liability-First plaintiffs (coachworks) lessees of land from second plaintiffs- Insurance of first plaintiffs' premises- Intimation by insurance company that the basic rate would be 15s., with reduction to 7s. 6d. if premises sprinklered- Lease by second plaintiffs to defendants of land for stadium - Erection by defendants of grandstand overhanging first plaintiffs' premises-Additional fire hazard- First plaintiffs informed by insurance company that unless the grandstand was sprinklered, the basic rate would be increased to one guinea-Covenant by defendants under their lease that they "will also refund to the coachworks on demand any additional insurance premium or expense which the coachworks may have to pay or be liable for by reason of the erection of the stand or stands projecting over the land . . . . or otherwise in connection with the lessees' occupation and use of the premises demised"-Liability for additional premiums.

CARLIN (OR ANDREW) v. CLAN LINE STEAMERS, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 142

Negligence-Death of stevedore's labourer engaged in loading defenders' steamship - Breaking of ladder - Ladder taken by fellow-workman from defenders' store-Breaking of ladder due to faulty condition-Claim by dependants of deceased stevedore against shipowners-Defenders' plea that pursuer's averments were irrelevant - Responsibility of shipowners towards stevedoring company's employees.

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

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 145

Contract-Conflict of laws-Bonds issued by British Government in the United States of America-Issue in exchange for Secured Loan Convertible Gold Notes-Repayment of principal-Payment of interest-Mode of payment- 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 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 1, 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 bondholders entitled to be paid in New York such a sum in dollars as represented on the due date of payment the gold value (ascertained in accordance with the standard of weight and fineness existing on Feb. 1, 1917) of the nominal amount of the bonds, or only to be paid "dollar for dollar" of the nominal amount-Law applicable - Intention of parties - Inference to be drawn from contract terms and from surrounding circumstances -Sovereign State as party to contract.

EWER v. NATIONAL EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL GENERAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 172

Fire insurance - Non-disclosure - Fraudulent exaggeration of claim-Policy taken out by plaintiff with defendants covering premises, fixtures and contents of garage-Fire-Damage to premises and contents-Claim-Repudiation of liability - Plaintiff originally in partnership with relative, S-Partnership terminated before present insurance effected, premises remaining in joint ownership of plaintiff and S -Substantial loans made by S to plaintiff from time to time during the currency of the policy - Policy renewed from year to year - Duty of disclosure - Defendants' contention that plaintiff was bound to disclose, without any question being asked, the fact of his ever having made a claim at any time under any other policy of whatever sort; that he was bound to disclose the fact that any other insurer on any other risk had either refused to insure or declined to renew; further, that such a duty of disclosure extended to claims made by S- Evidence of claims under a previous policy on goods in transit; of the refusal by the underwriter on that risk to proceed with it; of various claims for damage to charabancs and lorries during the currency of the present policy and renewals; and of the insurance history of S-Exaggerated claim in respect of contents - Whether amounting to fraud.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 185

Railways-Exceptional rates-Application by railway company to Railway Rates Tribunal for consent to the granting of exceptional rates for grain from West of England docks to Cornish ports- Objection by Chamber of Shipping (on behalf of coastal shipping) that proposed rates "if granted would place coastal carriers at an undue and unfair disadvantage" and "that the proposed exceptional rates, if granted, would by reason of their prejudicial effect upon the interests of coastwise shipping be undesirable in the national interest"-Matters to be considered by Tribunal on such application-Appeal by Chamber of Shipping from decision of Railway Rates Tribunal that the matters raised in objection were not relevant to the granting by Tribunal of the railway company's application for exceptional rates-Railways Act, 1921, Sects. 36, 37, 38, 39, 58-Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, Sect. 39.

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

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 194

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-Appeal-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- Decision of learned Judge in favour of owners-Appeal. Arbitration-Fresh evidence-Remitting of award - Observations of C.A. upon scope of learned Judge's discretionary power to remit under Sect. 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1889.

THE "ACCLIVITY."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 201

Negligent navigation-Damage to plaintiffs' lighter Whitaker's No. 2-Squeezing between defendants' motor-vessel Acclivity and wharf - Plaintiffs' lighter moored at wharf in Old Harbour, Rive Hull-Defendants' vessel, in tow of tug, bound down-Other lighters moored opposite plaintiffs' lighter, leaving restricted channel-Attempt by defendants' tug to force way through-Acclivity jammed-Plaintiffs' lighter hung up on fall of tide, becoming constructive total loss - Whether Acclivity faced with a choice between two perilous courses - Visibility -Look-out-Rules for Navigating the River Hull, 1909, Rule 13. Rules for Navigating the River Hull, 1909 -Observations of learned Judge as to congestion.

THE "AUGUST CORDS."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 209

Collision between dumb hopper No. 9 (in tow of tug Challenge) and German steamship August Cords off Regent's Canal Dock entrance, River Thames- No. 9 bound down; August Cords, bound up, turning under starboard helm to enter Regent's Canal Dock- Attempt by No. 9, having overtaken steamship Wilton on her port side, to pass between Wilton and August Cords -Collision between port side aft of hopper and port counter and rudder of August Cords-Duty of vessel turning in river-Whether August Cords turned at an improper time and whether she was negligent in working her engines astern too long-Navigation of hopper - Look-out - Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 23.

THE "AFRIKA."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 215

Collision between American steamship President Jefferson and Danish steamship Afrika in Hongkong Harbour- Both vessels inward bound-Afrika overtaken by President Jefferson at entrance to harbour - President Jefferson manoeuvring to anchor in consequence of shore signal that a berth was not immediately available and following a conversation with the berthing-master who had put out in a tug-Duty to other vessels in vicinity- Change of course-Failure to sound helm signal-Duty to keep course and speed-Whether President Jefferson let go her anchor at an improper time, having regard to the proximity of the Afrika-Duty of Afrika as overtaking vessel-Whether negligent in failing to observe shore signal addressed to President Jefferson-Negligent navigation by both vessels-Whether negligence severable-Collision Regulations, Arts. 21, 24, 28-Decision of Hongkong Court that President Jefferson was 70 per cent. and Afrika 30 per cent. to blame-Varied by finding of Supreme Court of Hongkong that President Jefferson was alone to blame.

THE "AIZKARAI MENDI."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 224

Collision between French steamship Borée and Spanish steamship Aizkarai Mendi in North Sea in thick fog-Vessels on approximately opposite courses - Borée sunk - British steamship Caduceus on course parallel to and slightly ahead of Borée-Passing of Aizkarai Mendi and Caduceus port to port-Whether Caduceus and Aizkarai Mendi starboarded to each other or whether only the Caduceus starboarded -Contention by Borée that Aizkarai Mendi in starboarding to the Caduceus brought herself into collision with the Borée-Contention by Aizkarai Mendi that she kept her course and that the Borée ported into her-Signals-Look-out -Speeds-Duty of vessels in fog- Collision Regulations, Art. 16.

THE "STRANNA."

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 231

Bill of lading-Short delivery-Shipment of timber at Alma, N.B.-Loss of deck cargo while loading, following a list first to port and then to starboard- Unascertained cause - Liability of shipowners-Deck cargo carried "at charterer's risk" - "Perils of the sea . . . and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation wheresoever, including ports of loading . . . of whatever nature and kind soever . . . always mutually excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default, or error in judgment of the . . . master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowners" -Contentions by shipowners (1) that loss was due to a peril of the sea; (2) that the deck cargo was carried "at charterer's risk" and that as no negligence had been proved against the shipowners they were protected by those words-Onus of proof-Whether a "peril of the sea" or a "peril on the sea."

REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD. v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 241

Charter-party - General average - Deviation - Vessel bound from Poti to Baltimore-Call at Constantza for bunker fuel-Stranding at Constantza -Part cargo jettisoned - General average expenses incurred-Cargo lien released by plaintiff shipowners on guarantee given by cargo underwriters -Claim by plaintiffs for declaration that cargo underwriters were liable to pay to them the contribution due from cargo towards general average loss and expenditure, and that underwriters should concur in releasing to plaintiffs the sum deposited in bank in joint names to cover balance of freight (withheld from payment by consignees of jettisoned cargo)-Whether route taken was the ordinary commercial route for such a vessel-Matters to be taken into consideration-"20. Steamer has liberty to call at any port or ports, in any order, or places, to bunker."

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

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 247

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.

LONDON ASSURANCE v. CLARE AND ANOTHER. ADAIR AND OTHERS v. SAME. BRITISH EQUITABLE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., AND OTHERS v. SAME.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 254

Fire insurance-Fraudulent exaggeration of claim - Incendiarism - Non-disclosure -Fires at assured's premises in 1931 and in 1933-Payment by plaintiff insurers under policy in respect of 1931 fire-Refusal by insurers after investigation to make any payment in respect of 1933 fire-Alleged fraudulent exaggeration of claim- Death of assured-Claim by insurers against administrators of assured's estate to be recouped amount paid in respect of 1931 fire (on grounds that fire was deliberately caused by or with the privity of the assured and that claim was fraudulently exaggerated) and to be paid as damages for breach of contract the expenses incurred in investigating the circumstances surrounding the 1933 fire-Counterclaim by administrators for sum alleged to be due in respect of the 1933 fire-Onus of proof - Evidence of financial position of assured and of stock-in-trade -Issue of non-disclosure dropped during course of the trial-Questions for jury: "(1) Was the 1931 fire caused by a deliberate act of incendiarism to which the assured was privy? Failure to agree. (2) Was the claim made in respect of the 1931 fire fraudulent? Yes. (3) Was the claim made in respect of the 1933 fire fraudulent? Yes."-Effect of jury's findings - Expenses incurred in investigation of claim - Whether recoverable as damages for breach of an implied term of the contract that assured should make an honest and not a fraudulent claim.

BEAUCHAMP v. NATIONAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 272

Workmen's compensation insurance - Demolition of building-Policy taken out with defendants by plaintiff builder to cover accidents to employees engaged in that particular demolition - Collapse of building- Three workmen killed and two injured -Liability of defendants under policy -Question in proposal form: "Are any acids, gases, chemicals, explosives, or any other dangerous preparations used in your business? A: No"- Whether question and answer promissory and amounted to a condition or warranty or were merely descriptive of risk-Cause of collapse-Use of explosives -Whether a contributory cause- Change of risk-Defendants' further contention that plaintiff failed to comply with Condition 4 of the policy providing that "the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents, and to comply with all statutory obligations."

STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(1937) 57 Ll L Rep 279

War risk insurance-Recovery of loss from enemy-Award by United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission -Right of British reinsurers to share in recovery-Plaintiffs (British underwriters) and defendants (American underwriters) mutually interested in same risks (as insurers, reinsurers or co-insurers) during Great War - Setting up of Commission, after signing of Treaty of Berlin between United States and Germany, to adjudicate upon claims for war losses by American nationals against Germany - Claim by defendants - Character of claims to be presented -Commission's decision that "no underwriters, other than corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State thereof . . . and partnerships and/or individuals other than such as owe permanent allegiance to the United States, are to share in any manner whatsoever in the distribution of the awards involved in this settlement"-Award of actual out-of-pocket losses-Effect of Commission's decision-Whether intended to abrogate plaintiffs' derivative rights -Jurisdiction of Commission-Nature of award-Contention by plaintiffs that award should be regarded as salvage in diminution of losses sustained and that therefore they were entitled to share-Reparation received by British Government from Germany in respect of war losses to nationals, but no distribution made to plaintiffs.

Lloyd's Law Reports