Wicklow Pilotage is compulsory in and out, except for steamships in certain cases; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 111 (Local), ss. 134 seq.; and see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 121 (Local).

Wisbeach: See Kingston-upon-Hull; and see 50 Geo. III. c. 206 (Local).

Woodbridge, Yarmouth (f). See London Trinity House.

At Aberbrothwick or Arbroath, Irvine, Limerick, Llanelly, Places at which byeMacduff, New Ross, Newry, and Tralee, it is not clear whether laws are in compulsory pilotage exists or not. In some cases bye-laws existence purporting to make it compulsory have been made. The Acts purporting to make pilotage by which the pilotage authorities at these places are regulated compulsory. are as follows:

Aberbrothwick or Arbroath: 2 & 3 Vict. c. 16 (Local); 27 & 28 Vict. c. 33 (Local); for bye-laws see Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Irvine: 36 & 37 Vict. c. 124 (Local); for bye-laws see Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Limerick: 4 Geo. IV. c. 94 (Local); 10 & 11 Vict. c. 198 (Local); byelaws, Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Llanelly: 53 Geo. III. c. 183 (Local); 6 & 7 Vict. c. 88 (Local); 21 & 22 Vict. c. 72 (Local); 27 & 28 Vict. c. 203 (Local); Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882, for bye-laws. Macduff: 10 & 11 Vict. c. 127 (Local). New Ross: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 140 (Local); 37 & 38 Vict. c. 116 (Local). Newry: 10 Geo. IV. c. 126 (Local); Order in Council of 16th May, 1878. Tralee: 9 Geo. IV.

c. 118 (Local).

Pilotage authorities exist at the following places, but at all of them pilotage is free:

Berwick: 48 Geo. III. c. 104 (Local); 25 Vict. c. 31 (Local). Buckie (Cluny): 37 & 38 Vict. c. 185 (Local). Burntisland: 44 & 45 Vict. c. 85 (Local). Cardiff, including Penarth: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (Local), repealing 19 & 20 Vict. c. 122 (Local); 43 & 44 Vict. c. 24; Orders in Council of 20th October, 1874, and 20th April, 1883. Carlingford Lough: 27 & 28 Vict. c. 93; Order in Council of 16th May, 1878. Cork (g): 1 Geo. IV. c. 52 (Local); Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Douglas (Isle of Man): 35 & 36 Vict. c. 23.

(f) As to the limits of the Yarmouth district, see supra, p. 267.

M.

(g) See The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442.

T

Dundee: 38 & 39 Vict. c. 150 (Local); Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Eyemouth: 37 & 38 Vict. c. 185 (Local). Gardenstown: 39 & 40 Vict. c. 40 (Local). Gloucester: 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (Local); bye-laws, Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Hastings: 25 & 26 Vict. c. 51. Leith Harbour and Docks: 28 Geo. III. c. 58 (Local); 38 & 39 Vict. c. 160 (Local); Order in Council of 30th June, 1860. Leith Trinity House (h): 1 Geo. IV. c. 37; 5 Geo. IV. c. 39 (Local); bye-laws, Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Pilotage is free for British ships; see above, p. 270. Newport (Mon.): 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (Local); bye-laws, Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882. Penarth: 19 & 20 Vict. c. 122 (Local); see above, Cardiff. Portcawl: 18 Vict. c. 50 (Local); Parl. Paper, No. 325, Sess. 1882; Orders in Council, 6th May, 1857, and 27th November, 1878. Rosehearty: 26 & 27 Vict. c. 104. Sandhaven 36 & 37 Vict. c. 63 (Local); Order in Council, 20th March, 1877.

(h) The Leith Trinity House was incorporated by charter of 27th July, 1797. As to the limit of its

jurisdiction, see Hossack v. Gray, 6 Br. & S. 598.

CHAPTER X.

COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO (1) THE SHIPOWNER'S
LIABILITY AS CARRIER (2) THE CONTRACT OF IN-
SURANCE.-CRIMINAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF

COLLISION.

THE liability of the shipowner for loss by collision of goods on board his ship may be considered under two heads: (1) his liability by the custom of the realm; (2) his liability upon the contract of carriage. A common hoyman (a), the owner of barges, flats, or lighters, who lets them out for hire (b), the owner of a general ship trading between places within the realm or to foreign lands (c), are subject to the liability of a common carrier. Whether the owner of a ship that is not a general ship, Whether and trades to foreign lands, is a common carrier or liable shipowner is

a common

as such, is doubtful (d). Again, whether the owner of a carrier,
general ship is liable as a common carrier, except so far as
he is protected by the contract, where he carries goods under
a bill of lading, was, until recently, a question much dis-
puted (e). It appears to be now decided that he is not (ƒ).

(a) Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.

(b) Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 281; Lyon v. Mells, 5 East, 428; Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 9 Ex. 338.

(c) Morse v. Shee, 1 Ventr. 190, 238; see on this case per Blackburn, J., L. R. 9 Ex. 341; per Cockburn, C.J., 1 C. P. D. 430; Barclay v. Cuculla y Gana, 3 Dougl. 389.

(d) See Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, ubi supra; Smith v. Nugent, 1

C. P. D. 19; ib. 423; Chartered
Mercantile Bank of India, London,
and China v. Netherlands India
Steam Navigation Co., 10 Q. B. D.

521.

(e) See 1 Parsons on Shipping, pp. 245, seq. ed. 1869, where the writer states that he is not so liable.

(f) Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19, 423; but see per Pollock, B., Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., 9 Q. B. D. 118.

Shipowner's liability at

common law.

Shipowner's liability on the contract of carriage.

The liability of the shipowner at common law as carrier of goods is heavy. Like a common carrier, he is liable as insurer against loss or damage from any cause except the act of God and the Queen's enemies (g). For injury to passengers on board his ship he is liable only where it is caused by the negligence of himself or his officers or crew (h). To passengers, therefore, he is liable for injury in a collision caused by the fault (i) of his own ship, or by the fault of both ships. To cargo-owners he is liable for loss or damage in a collision by the fault of his own, or of both ships, or where it is an inevitable accident. It is possible that a collision might occur by act of God, in which case he would not be liable. But the ordinary socalled case of collision by inevitable accident, as where it is caused by stress of weather, fog, or latent defect in gear, would not come within the exception of act of God (k).

It has been held in America that owners of a tug towing craft with goods on board are not liable as common carriers for the safety of the goods (1).

In practice the shipowner carrying goods usually contracts himself out of the onerous liability imposed on him by the common law. By the charter-party or bill of lading it is usually agreed that the goods shall be carried and delivered in good order, unless loss or damage shall arise from certain specified causes. These causes, technically called "exceptions," commonly include "perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea, rivers, land, carriage, and steam navigation, of whatsoever nature and kind." Under a bill of lading so framed the shipowner is not liable for a

(g) Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19; ib. 423.

(h) See Redhead v. Midland Rail. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412; on app. ib. 4 Q. B. 379, and the cases there cited.

(i) Except where the fault is that of a compulsory pilot, see Ch. IX.

(k) See Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19, 34, as to what is an act of God.

(1) Caton v. Rumney, 13 Wend. 387. This seems to be the general rule, but there are contrary decisions, see 1 Parsons on Shipping (ed. 1869), 247, note.

collision which occurs without negligence in either ship (m); but he is liable where there is negligence in either ship (n). Sometimes in the bill of lading there is contained an exception of "collision." In that case the shipowner is not liable for a collision caused by the fault of the other ship (o); but he remains liable for a collision caused by the fault of his own ship (p).

To cover loss by the last-mentioned cause the following exception is sometimes added:-"Accidents, loss, or damage, from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever, of the pilot, master, or mariners, or other servants of the shipowner in navigating the ship." These words cover loss in a collision caused by the fault of the carrying ship (q). They do not cover loss by a collision with another ship of the same owners caused entirely by the fault of such ship (»).

In the case of a collision between the carrying ship and Collision between ships another belonging to the same owners, the effect of the of the same exception last mentioned, together with the statutory rule owner. as to division of loss where both ships are in fault (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub-sect. 9), is to relieve the shipowner from making good to the cargo-owner more than half his loss. He is liable as carrier for half, and for half only, of the loss on the goods (s).

(m) Buller v. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67; Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., Limited, 10 Q. B. D. 521; Woodley v. Michell, 11 Q. B. D. 47. As to American law on the point, see Angell on Carriers, 5th ed. 513.

(n) Woodley v. Michell, ubi supra. (0) Lloyd v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284; Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 600; on app. ib. 3 C. P. 476; Woodley v. Michell, 11 Q. B. D. 47; Chartered Mercantile Bank, &c. v. India Steam Navigation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521, 531.

(p) Woodley v. Michell, 11 Q. B. D. 47.

(1) Chartered Mercantile Bank, &c. v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. Except, perhaps, where there is negligence on the part of the owner in ap-. pointing an incompetent master: see per Brett, M.R., 10 Q. B. D. 532.

(r) Chartered Mercantile Bank, &c. v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., ubi supra.

(8) Chartered Mercantile Bank, &c. v. Netherlands, &c. Co., 10 Q. B. D.

521.