Damages after injuries to goods. In breach of contract or duty. board as to her condition, or of persons conversant with shipping who can form an independent judgment.1 When goods are lost or injured, the damages to be awarded are usually the value of the lost goods, or the amount by which their value has been reduced. That value is, generally speaking, the market value of the goods at the time and place where they should have been delivered, or in case of partial damage only, at the port of discharge. If from any cause there is no market for the goods, their real value, so far as is possible, must be ascertained as a fact, by considering the circumstances which would have influenced the market if one had existed, that is to say, the price of similar goods at the place of manufacture or production, less the cost of carriage, and allowing a reasonable sum for importer's profit.2 In case of a breach of contract or of duty the measure of damages is the amount of any loss, so far as it is a natural and necessary consequence of such breach, which is at once actual and reasonably possible, or such as is the natural consequence of a non-fulfilment of an object within the contemplation of the parties to the bill of lading.3 In most cases the damages, whether arising from collision or breach of a charter-party, are referred to the Registrar and Merchants for assessment; but when the question of damage can be decided on the hearing of the action more fitly than by the Registrar and Merchants, the Court will give a decision on the point. In questions arising out of 1 The Clyde, Swa. 23; The Ironmaster, Swa. 443; The African Steamship Co. v. Swanzy, 2 Kay & J. 660; 25 L. J. Ch. 870. 2 See Mayne on Damages, 2nd ed. 220; Rice v. Baxendale, 7 H. & N. 96; 30 L. J. Ex. 371; O'Hanlan v. Great Western Ry. Co., 6 B. & S. 484; 34 L. J. Q. B. 154; The St. Cloud, Br. & L. 4 (18); Brandt v. Bewley, 2 B. & Ad. 932 (939). 3 The Parana, 2 L. R. Ad. 118; 36 L. T. N. S. 388; Simpson v. London and N. W. Ry. Co., 1 L. R. Q. B. D. 274; 45 L. J. Q. B. D. 182; Sedgwick on Damages, 6th ed., p. 431. • The Maid of Kent, 50 L. J. Ad. D. 71. damage to cargo, the Registrar should follow common law principles in assessing the amount due.1 lien. A maritime lien for damage arises as soon as the injury Maritime is done; it attaches henceforth to the ship,2 and to its appurtenances, and to the whole of the freight. But the cargo may be arrested for freight due in respect of its carriage, which was in process of being earned, though it was not on board at the time when the damage was done.5 But no maritime lien exists against a ship in cases arising out of the negligence, misconduct, or breach of duty of the owner, master, or crew of a ship, so that valid charges have a priority over such claims, and the vessel is only a security from the time of its arrest." In any cause of action already mentioned, proceedings Limitation should not be taken in the Admiralty Division if the to actions. amount claimed does not exceed 300l. Recent decisions, as pointed out previously (p. 15), have, however, abrogated the provisions of the County Court Acts as to costs, and the matter is one for the discretion of the Court. 1 The St. Cloud, Br. & L. 4. The Bold Buccleugh, 7 Moo. P. C. 267 (281); The Lymington, 32 The Alexander, 1 Dods. 278 (282); The Dundee, 1 Hagg. 104. 5 The Leo, Lush. 444; 31 L. J. Ad. 78; The Orpheus, 3 L. R. Ad. 308; 40 L. J. Ad. 24. And see ante as to lien generally, p. 6. 7 The Pieve Superiore, 5 L. R. P. C. 412; 43 L. J. Ad. 20. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, ss. 3, 4, 9; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 57, ss. 2, 4. CHAPTER IV. WAGES. THE law relating to the wages of scamen has in this country since the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, become almost wholly statutory, and the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division itself may be said now to be based on the Admiralty Court Act of 1861, which finally gave to this maritime tribunal a power which had been long and often denied to it by the Courts of Common Law. By that statute the Court has "jurisdiction over any claim by a seaman of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, whether the same be due under a special contract or otherwise, and also over any claim by the master of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, and for disbursements made by him on account of the ship."1 A seaman to whom wages are due has a right of action against the owner or the master (if he be not himself the master) at law, or he may bring his action in the Admiralty Division, either in personam against the owner or in rem against the ship,2 and if he fails to obtain relief, or all the relief to which he is entitled, by one process, the other remains open to him, so that if he consents to forego his claim against the owner personally, the ship is not 1 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 10. Ship in the above section is, by s. 2, defined as "any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. 2 A. C. Act, 1861, s. 35. The Bengal, Swa. 468; and see further as to actions in rem and in personam, p. 43. thereby released from its maritime liability for any wages which may be due.' It is necessary, in the first place, to point out who are entitled to sue for wages. The general rule is that any person who has done any work on board a ship can bring an action to obtain what is due to him.2 The jurisdiction of the Court extends to foreign seamen Actions against on board foreign ships, but when foreign ships are sued, foreign whether by a British or a foreign seaman, certain formalities ships. are required preliminary to the action. Notice of the action against the ship must be sent to the consul of the country to which she belongs. Should this official enter a protest against the cause being entertained by the Court, and state reasons for it, the claimant must dispute any facts which it is necessary to deny, and give answers to his objections, when it will become the duty of the judge to decide, in his discretion, whether the action shall be allowed to proceed.3 enemies. Alien enemies, though as a general rule they are not Alien entitled to the use of our Courts, may sue in the Admiralty Division for wages if the ship on which they have been earned has come to this country under a British licence, so as to take away for a time the disqualifications of those on board.+ Although the master of a ship, as agent of the owners, is liable to be sued at common law by the seaman, he occupies a double capacity, for by the statute of 18615 he 1 The Chieftain, Br. & L. 212. The following are some of the decisions on the capacities of persons suing for wages: The Wharton, 3 Hagg. 148, n., surgeon ; The Prince George, ib. 376, purser; Alison v. March, 2 Ventris, 181, boatswain; The Jane and Matilda, 1 Hagg. 187, female cook and steward; The Bulmer, ib. 163, carpenter; The Albert Crosby, Lush. 44, apprentice; and see Hook v. Moreton, 1 Lord Ray. 397. The Milford, Swa. 362; The Octavie, Br. & L. 215; 6 L. T. N. of objection allowed, see The Herzogin Marie, Lush. 292. Wages must be earned in connection with a ship. is enabled to sue the ship on which he has served for his wages, and has in all respects the same rights as an ordinary seaman. And the right of action which foreign seamen have is equally possessed by foreign masters.1 The remuneration of pilots, being in the nature of wages, must be here touched on. By maritime law the Admiralty Division entertains claims by them for payment of sums due, whether pursued by an action in rem or in personam, unless a contract has been made and the work has been done within the body of a county. But if a claim is exorbitant, or the contract under which it arises was entered into by the master of the ship under the pressure of necessity, the Court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, will award a reasonable sum for the services which have been rendered. Although the Court has not jurisdiction to entertain an action against a pilot for damage arising from any default on his part, which must be prosecuted in the Common Law Division, yet, under Order XIX., r. 3, it clearly has power to pronounce for such a claim if pleaded as a set-off or a counterclaim to an action. Secondly, the meaning of the word wages, and the times from which they begin to accrue and at which they are payable, have to be considered. To fall within the term wages, for the purpose of an action in the Admiralty Division, the sums sued for must have been earned on board the ship, not necessarily at sea, but in work on the vessel itself, or in duties connected with it. Thus when a ship was being repaired, and the master, though he did not sleep on board, was busied about the concerns of the vessel, he was held entitled to receive his wages. But it is obvious that 1 The Milford, Swa. 262. The Nelson, 6 C. Rob. 227; Ross v. see The Dowthorpe, 2 W. Rob. 73. Walker, 2 Wils. 264; and The Urania, 5 L. T. N. S. 402; 1 Mar. L. C. (O. S.) 156. |