CASES RE-HEARD. The Acorn was originally heard before the Stipendiary Magis- and William trate at Cardiff and Assessors. The casualty Hartmann. inquired into was a collision between the two vessels, and the Court held that it was due to a negligent look-out on board the William Hartmann, a steamship, and that the mate was responsible and in default. They accordingly suspended his certificate for three months (a). The Board of Trade, on the mate's application, ordered the case to be re-heard before the Wreck Commissioner and Assessors, and further evidence was adduced to show that the Acorn had not been seriously damaged by the collision. Upon the re-hearing the Court found that the mate of the William Hartmann was to blame for not keeping a good look-out, but ordered his certificate to be returned to him, as neither they nor the Court below had jurisdiction to deal with it, the Acorn not having been seriously damaged within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts ("). The case of the Scio was originally heard before two Justices of the Peace and Assessors at North Shields. The vessel was run ashore on the coast of Fifeshire to prevent her sinking, and the Court found that she was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition, that the master and mate were in default, and that the owner was also in default. The Court accordingly suspended the master's certificate for three months; they censured the mate, and ordered the owner to pay £50 towards the costs of the Investigation (©). The owner applied for a re-hearing, on the ground that new and important evidence as to the condition of the vessel could be produced. The Board of Trade being of opinion that there was ground for suspecting a miscarriage of justice, ordered the case to be re-heard before Justices of the Peace at North Shields. Upon the re-hearing the Justices confirmed the previous decision with respect to the master and mate, and found that the blame (if any) which might (a) The Acorn and William Hartmann, Report dated 25th June, 1881. (b) Ibid, Report of Re-hearing dated 11th August, 1881. (e) The Scio, Report dated 31st December, 1881. The Scio. The Scio. The Escambia. be attached to the owner in executing the repairs done by him to the vessel would partake of the nature of an error in judgment, and they did not therefore confirm that part of the previous decision by which the owner had been ordered to pay £50 towards the costs of the Inquiry. The Assessors while concurring in the decision of the Justices upon the re-hearing as regarded the master and mate, did not otherwise concur in the report. They stated their reasons for dissenting therefrom in a separate report to the Board of Trade, and therein held that the owner was to blame and in default for not using reasonable precautions to ascertain the condition of his vessel previous to her leaving port ("). In the case of the Escambia, a Formal Investigation was held before a Naval Court at San Francisco, consisting of the British consul and two masters of British ships as Nautical Assessors. The vessel left San Francisco with a cargo of wheat, and in crossing the bar at the entrance to the bay she shipped some heavy seas in succession, filling the fore and after wells, which threw her over to port and ultimately caused her to fall over on her beam ends and founder, twenty-five of her crew being drowned. The Naval Court found that the evidence as to the vessel's stability was somewhat conflicting; that she was not overloaded; that no blame attached to the master in connection with the loss of the ship; and that with the evidence before the Court they could come to no other conclusion than that the loss was due to a peril of the sea (b). The Board of Trade upon considering the Report, were of opinion that inasmuch as there was no evidence before the Naval Court, as to the construction of the vessel, and the plans were not produced to them, it was obvious that the decision arrived at was based upon insufficient evidence, and was necessarily inaccurate and misleading. The Board accordingly ordered the case to be re-heard before the Wreck Commissioner, and (*) The Scio, Report of Re-hearing, dated 14th February, 1882. 1882. the re-hearing took place at Westminster, the Assessors having special knowledge and experience in the construction of ships and the loading of cargoes of grain. The Court found that the vessel, although in a good and efficient state as regarded her hull and machinery, and with her cargo properly stowed when she left San Francisco, was overladen, and had not sufficient stability, and that the water she took on deck in crossing the bar caused her to fall over on her beam ends, and at the same time the door at the after-part of the alley-way on the portside being open the water passed through into the engine-room, and she filled and went down. The Court also found that the master had committed a grave error of judgment in putting to sea with the vessel in the state in which she was, but they did not deal with his certificate ("). The Escambia In the case of the Bertioga, a sailing ship, The Bertioga. stranded off the coast of Brazil, a Formal Investigation had been held before a Naval Court at Céara, in Brazil, consisting of the British vice-consul, a merchant, and two masters of British ships. They found that the vessel was not navigated with proper care; that the master did not attend to his duties at any time on the day of the wreck; and that the loss of the vessel was caused entirely by mismanagement on his part, and he was further found to have been the worse for liquor during the whole of the day of the casualty. The Naval Court did not, however, exercise their direct power of cancellation or suspension with respect to the master's certificate, but forwarded it to the Board of Trade to be dealt with by them. The Court gave no decision as to the conduct of the chief mate ("). The Board of Trade having no longer the power to deal with certificates (), the proceedings of the Naval Court were altogether nugatory. The Board accordingly ordered the case to be re-heard. (*) The Escambia, Report of Re-hearing, dated 28th November, 1882. (b) The Bertioga, Report of Naval Court, dated 16th October, 1882. (c) See 25 & 26 Vict., c. 63, s. 23, sub-sec. 1, ante, page 60. The Bertioga. The Arizona. Defective look-out. The second Inquiry took place before the Wreck Commissioner with two Assessors, when the Court confirmed in substance the finding of the Naval Court, and in addition they held that the chief mate was also to blame in respect of the navigation and management of the vessel. The Court accordingly cancelled the master's certificate, and suspended for six months the master's certificate held by the chief mate, with a recommendation that he should be granted a first mate's certificate in the meantime (*). Appeals. There have been several appeals under the Act. The first was in the matter of the steamship Arizona, and in the judgment therein some important general principles were laid down by the Court of Appeal. It was an appeal to the Admiralty Division of the High Court by the master of the steamship Arizona, which had been seriously damaged through collision with an iceberg, against the decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate finding the master and second mate in default for not keeping an efficient look-out, and suspending their certificates for six months. It was held that the Court will, on an appeal, consider the evidence on which the judgment of the Court of Inquiry proceeded, and will reverse the judgment if the evidence is insufficient to justify the suspension of the certificate. The evidence must be such as to lead to the conclusion that the default of the officer was the cause of the casualty. It appeared that the look-out men had been so placed that they were able to efficiently perform their duty, that after they had sighted the iceberg for an appreciable time before the collision they did not report it as it was their duty to do, but consulted with one another, and informed the master of the danger too late to enable him to avoid the collision. The Court therefore held that the cause of the collision, if it was possible for them to have seen the iceberg sooner than they did, must be attributed to the fact that they did not keep a good look-out, or that they did not (*) The Bertioga, Report of Re-hearing, dated 3rd January, 1883. give warning soon enough of that which afterwards The Arizona. turned out to be an iceberg, and came to the conclusion that the master did not, in those circumstances, cause or contribute to the casualty. The judgment was accordingly reversed ("). In a second case, an appeal was lodged against the The Carfin. decision of two Justices at Glasgow in an Investigation into the stranding of the steamship Carfin. It appeared that the vessel had left Glasgow, and after discharging the pilot off Greenock the master took charge and she proceeded down the river at full speed. The weather was hazy, but the shore lights and the land on either side were visible. At 3.56 a.m. she arrived abreast of the Cloch Light and was about half a mile distant from it. The chief officer informed the master that he could not get the second officer on deck to choose the watches, and the master without giving the chief officer any instructions as to the course, left the bridge for the purpose of calling the second officer. The master was absent from the bridge from four to five minutes, and in the meantime a beacon was reported, and a few moments after the vessel stranded on the Gantock Rock. The Court found the master in default; and for leaving Leaving deck the deck without sufficient justification at a time at a critical when the safety of the ship required his personal supervision, they suspended his certificate for six months. The appeal being necessarily brought in Scotland, was heard by the Second Division of the Court of Session, assisted by two nautical Assessors, and they confirmed the decision of the Court below with costs. There was no dispute in regard to the facts of the case, but in the conclusion to be drawn from them. The question simply was whether the act of the master in going below was in the circumstances justifiable, and the Court held that it was not (b). time. Rowland. Another appeal arose out of a collision in Dover The Mary and Roads between the sailing ship Mary and the steamship Rowland (e) in April, 1881. The Formal Investigation was held before the Stipendiary (*) The Arizona, 5 Prob. Div. 123; 49 L.J. 54; 42 L.T. 405; 28 W.R. 704. () Ewer v. Board of Trade, 7 Rettie, Sc. 835. () The Mary and Rowland, unreported. |