COLLISION.

keep the ship in tow out of danger. Tugmasters have often to meet trying difficulties. They cannot, on a sudden emergency, back astern and stop the speed of the ship they are encumbered with, and, this being so, the vessel astern has to be as much avoided as another they have to keep clear of. Any hard and fast regulation, therefore, must not be applied to tugs in tow. The rules should be left as they stand at present, and as they were interpreted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, December 20, 1800, in the case of the Cleadon, namely, that "it is the duty of a tug, if possible, to get out of the way of a sailing vessel." The whole law is expressed in these few words. If a tug can give way she has to do so, but those in command are not expected to perform impossibilities. It is said that the tug has the sole control of the movements of both vessels, and, consequently, ought to be responsible for all damage, she being the motive and governing power. This is a doctrine open to endless controversy. The fact is, that the tug and tow are one for certain purposes, but every cause of disaster must be determined strictly on its merits. The motive power is in the tug, but not on board the ship in tow, and therefore, the twins in law being divided and flexible, no inflexible law can bind them. Sir R. PHILLIMORE said, in the course of arguments laid before him, that there was no authority for holding that a steamer could, by reason of such towing, avoid her obligation to keep out of the way of a steamship, and this ruling has been acted upon in numerous judgments. These tug cases have taken up more time in the Admiralty Court than any others (vide the Zephyr, June 1, 1864; the Zenobia, July 27, 1865; the David Cannon, March 16, 1865). The collision between the American and the Syria went on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and their Lordships were occupied on July 10, 11, 14, and 24, 1874, in listening to the pleadings of counsel. The decision arrived at was in strict conformity with former judgments, although it, perhaps, defined the several liabilities to the parties in such suits more clearly than had been done before. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that a steamship, when towing another vessel, was within the meaning of the "Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" relating to steamers, and was not, though in a burthened condition, altogether absolved from the duty of keeping out of the way of a sailing vessel; still, allowances should be made, under the circumstances of the case, for the comparatively disabled state of the encumbered steamer, and hence the duty of additional precaution on the part of a sailing ship on approaching a steamer so embarrassed. No law could be better defined than this, for it is exceedingly bad seamanship for a Pilot or a Master to approach a vessel in tow, or the tug ahead, as though they were as free as his own ship to manoeuvre in any direction. Common sense should tell a Shipmaster that two vessels cannot be guided as easily as one. A sailing ship ought not to be steered on to a tug, or the vessel in tow, simply because it is the duty of a steamer to give way, for it should be borne in mind that a tug is not always able to haul the ship in tow clear even if she could get out of the way herself. The point of law brought prominently forward was in relation to the liabilities of the tug and the tow. Usually the tug is the servant of the tow, and the tow is answerable

COLLISION.

for the negligence of her servant, and is, for some purposes, identified with her. In the case of the American and the Syria, however, the position of a servant did not exist. The steamers belonged to the same owners, and the Master of the one took the other, when disabled, in tow, because he considered it was a duty to his employers, and also with a view to get Salvage on the cargo of the vessel towed. There was no evidence of his having been hired by the Captain of the disabled steamer, or of his having acted in any way under the control of the latter. The governing power, said their Lordships, was wholly in the tug, and the motive power likewise. This differed materially from the ordinary state of affairs when the governing power is in the ship towed and the motive power in the tug. There was, it will be seen, a certain peculiarity in the case of the American, for hers was not an ordinary engagement to tow. As regards, however, the duties of a sailing ship on approaching a vessel in tow, the Court decided that she should hold her course unless a departure from it was necessitated by special circumstances to avoid immediate danger. In plain language, this implies that the Master of a sailing ship must not run into a tug or vessel in tow when he sees, on approaching close enough, that they could not, if desired, give way. This is only a legal construction of Article 19, which enacts that, in obeying the Rules, due regard must be had to all dangers of navigation, and to any special circumstances rendering a departure from the Regulations necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. The Rules are explicit enough when read by the light of nautical experience. A late disaster, however, proves that the law of the sea is not rightly understood, or otherwise the Master of a sailing ship would not have pressed a tug so closely as to drive her ashore, so that he might act in conformity with the Rules. A careful review of all the leading cases tried in the Admiralty Courts within the past twenty years will convince any person of reason that the spirit of the Rules with respect to tugs and tow is not observed in practice. When tugs might have given way they have neglected to do so, and sailing ships have been steered across the bows of tugs when the tug and tow could not, by the most skilful management, turn aside. It is evident, therefore, that the Rules are right enough, but they require to be better understood.-October 7, 1876.

DAMAGES AND COSTS IN ADMIRALTY.

SIR, A Norwegian barque having in December last been run into by an American three-masted schooner, a High Court judgment was obtained for damages and costs in favour of the Norwegian barque to the amount of 1,183l. 18s. 7d. for damages done, the costs being up till now about 2007., but the American vessel having at first only been arrested for 8007., for which bail was given, and having left before a proper estimate of repairs could be obtained, her Agents declined to pay any more than 8001. The American corresponding Owner has a great number of vessels under his command, of which he owns himself many shares, and of which there are continually ships in this country. Since the above 800l. were paid two vessels of the same corresponding ownership were arrested, and the shares belonging to the corresponding Owner put up for sale by auction, by order of the High Court, but owing to the difficulty of transferring this property into English hands no bidders could be found, and the vessels had to be released, as the other Part-Owners would have claimed damages for detaining their property. How are we to obtain the balance

COLLISION.

due to the Norwegian vessel, amounting to about 5807.?Yours, &c.,

THE AGENTS FOR THE NORWEGIAN VESSEL. Swansea, July 17, 1876.

[Shares in foreign-owned vessels, to give the holders a legal title, must be registered in the State to which they belong, and it may not be competent for foreigners to be registered as shareholders in a State in which they are aliens. If, therefore, the vessel which did the damage does not come again within British jurisdiction, our Correspondent would have to take proceedings in the Admiralty Court in America, or else in a Common Law Court in the States, and produce the English judgment.]

ADMIRALTY COURT PROCEEDINGS.

SIR, Damages have been caused to my vessel to the amount of 50% to 100%., by the fault of the Commander of one of her Majesty's cutters. I proposed taking proceedings in the County Court having Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Port where the damage was done, but the Admiralty Proctors object, and insist upon my proceeding, at an enormous unnecessary expense, in the High Court of Admiralty. Have the Admiralty Proctors any right to do this, or can I proceed in the County Court? SHIPOWNER.

Aberayron, June 8, 1876.

[Under Section 3 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, any County Court having Admiralty jurisdic tion has power to try and determine any claim for damage by collision in which the amount claimed does not exceed 3004. The High Court of Admiralty may order the cause to be prosecuted in the County Court (Sec. 7), or the Judge of a County Court may transfer a cause to the High Court (Sec. 8). If proceedings are taken in the High Court of Admiralty which might and ought to have been taken in a County Court, no costs are allowed unless the Judge of the High Court certifies that it was a fit and proper case to be heard before his Court (Sec. 9). We would advise an application to the County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction within the district, and leave the judge to determine the question.]

ADMIRALTY AWARD AND COSTS. SIR,-Two years ago I had a vessel in collision in the Mersey with a French barque. My vessel being in fault, I offered the Frenchman what I considered a reasonable amount for damage done. He refused to accept my offer, and claimed more than double the amount. My vessel was bound here, and on her arrival a writ was put on her for a considerable sum. They took the case into Court, and I paid into Court the amount I offered them previously. On the case being called on for hearing, and I not having any security from them, my solicitor asked for security, in case the expenses were given against them (the plaintiffs). In the presence of the Judge the plaintiff's solicitor said he would undertake the payment of the expenses. The case having been gone into, the amount paid into Court exceeded the award, consequently the expenses (the decision of which was reserved until the following Court) were given in our favour, but up to this time I have never been able to get our expenses from the solicitor for the plaintiffs. He said he sent the money on to his client's solicitors, and although I have applied numerous times, I am informed that they have never heard of the Frenchman since. Who is liable to me-the solicitor here or the Frenchman who cannot be found?—Yours, &c., Whitehaven, Dec. 27, 1876. A SHIPOWNER.

[The solicitor who took the money out of Court was bound to apply it in the terms of the decree. If he has done so, and in doing so the fund is exhausted, our client has no redress; and if he has not, he (the solicitor) is accountable to our Correspondent for the difference.]

COLLISION.

DOCKING AND COLLISION.

SIR,-On shifting my vessel-the Benita-from the South Basin to the North, with a steamtug ahead and a licensed harbour Pilot on board, I came into collision with a barge, which had only one man on board, and was lying in the fairway of vessels going into the North Basin. Am I liable for the damage done, and to what extent ?-Yours, &c. T. D. WELSH, Master of Benita.

Swansea, Dec. 3, 1876. [Masters of vessels requiring to bring their ships within the harbour are compelled to employ a Pilot for that purpose, and to pay rates according to register tonnage; but Pilotage is not compulsory in moving vessels within the docks. The vessel having been in charge of a Pilot by compulsion of law the Owner of the ship is not liable, and the owner of the barge must look to the Pilot for the recovery of damages to the extent of the latter's bond.-(See Swansea Pilotage Act, and Section 362, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.)]

COLLISION BETWEEN FOREIGN SHIPS. SIR, A Swedish ship, on her voyage from America to Russia, had the misfortune, in the Channel, off Dover, to get into collision with a Norwegian barque. This barque received damage and went to Dover Harbour. The Swedish ship lost her foreyard, and proceeded to Dungeness for fixing the same. When she was at anchor there in the open roads an embargo was laid upon her, in consequence of the Captain of the Norwegian barque having made a claim against the Master. On account of the dangerous position at Dungeness Roads, the Swedish ship left there and proceeded to the Downs with the Government officer on board, and anchored there about three miles from shore. Here the embargo remained in effect, and the ship got detained from the middle of May to the end of this month by the English authorities. The Master of the Swedish ship went ashore and stated that he had done the damage, and that he was willing to pay for the same, as estimated by the Surveyors, on arriving at the Port of his destination. No notice was taken of this offer. The Swedish ship had to stay under embargo until the Owners had sent the amount which was claimed by the Norwegian barque. As the accident between both ships belonging to foreign countries took place in an open sea, had the British authorities the right, the Swedish ship not having entered an English Port, to lay an embargo upon her and the cargo? And if the authorities had the right of doing so in any case, would it not have been prudent, on account of other property being detained by this embargo, to have had the settlement effected at the Port of destination by the Consular Agent, when the Master of the Swedish ship guaranteed to pay the claim out of his freight after arrival at his destination ?-Yours, &c., June 19, 1876.

N. N., Merchant.

[If the vessel, when off Dungeness, was beyond the threemile limit, we are of opinion that the British authorities would not be legally empowered to detain her at the suit of another foreigner. When in the Downs, if the foreign ship was brought within the jurisdiction, it would rest with the Courts of Law to determine whether, if the arrest was illegal off Dungeness, it would be valid when the ship arrived in the Downs. It is admitted that the Swedish ves-el was the wrongdoing ship, and therefore the Master of the Norwegian vessel would have the right to apply for an order of arrest if the former was within British jurisdiction.]

COLLISION.

damage, and being the wrongdoer, must make full compensation. This includes towage into Port, if necessary, and the "indemnity for loss of time during detention should be made up to the date when, with due diligence, the repairs might be completed, and such loss is to be estimated according to what would have been certain or most probable to have been obtained by the employment of the ship if there had been no collision"-(The Inflexible, Admiralty Court, Feb. 14, 1857); and the claimant "is to be put in the same position as if no collision had occurred "-(The Gazelle, A.C., May 3, 1844). The Crew therefore would be entitled to extra remuneration in proportion to the time lost on the voyage.]

DAMAGED IN TIER.

SIR,-My vessel was moored in a tier on a beach where there is no Harbour Master, and there was a vessel moored before mine, but not square with the tier. A few days after it came on rough weather, and the first in the tier received a little damage by fouling my vessel, although the Master had been told to square his ship, but did not do so. There was no one on board either vessel. The Master of the ship that fouled mine wants me to pay for the damage. I bound to do so ?—Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER. March 7, 1877.

Am

[If the facts are as represented, our Correspondent would not be liable for the damage done. There should have been some one on board the ships when they were afloat to guard them against accidents.]

SHIP IN TOW COLLIDING.

SIR,-My vessel was sailing down Channel on a fine night, close-hauled on a wind on the starboard tack, with the regulation lights burning, when the look-out reported the masthead and the green lights of a steamer which was towing a vessel. When getting close, the steamer ported her helm and showed her red light, and then we also ported and showed our red light. The tug crossed our course, and the ship in tow struck us on the port bow, doing our vessel much damage. Was not the steamtug and ship in fault in endeavouring to cross our bows? A SHIPMASTER. London, April 13, 1876.

[If the green and masthead lights only were visible, the tug must have been coming up obliquely abeam and to port of the vessel on the starboard tack, or standing in a direction to cross ahead. If the tug's green light and the close-hauled vessel's green light were open to each other, the tug must have been sufficiently to starboard and ahead of the sailing vessel to have gone clear herself; but whether the ship she was towing could have done so is a question of relative distances. If the tug eased and ported in order to pass astern, the luffing up of the sailing vessel might have defeated the manœuvre. If the person in charge of the tug ported the helm of that vessel, and brought the ship in tow towards the bow of the close-hauled sailing vessel, and the porting of the sailing vessel did not in any way contribute to the collision, and was only resorted to in extremity, the Owner of the ship in tow would be liable for the damage incurred.]

CLOSE-HAULED SHIP.

SIR,-My vessel, the Uller, of Laurvig, arrived in Scrabster Roads a few days ago bound for Thurso River. On Friday morning last I got underweigh, and on coming towards the bar and seeing vessels coming out, I waited outside with my vessel till half an hour's ebb, when I proceeded to take the bar. Just as I was about the bar, and where I had no room to stay or wear, I saw a schooner coming down the channel (which is rather narrow), and to avoid a collision I ported my vessel's helm, whereby she took the ground by the heel. The other vessel came into collision with mine, and carried away the jibboom and some headgear. My vessel was on

COLLISION.

the starboard tack close by the wind; the other had the wind free. Thurso is a place where there are no rules or regulations for vessels frequenting the Port.-Yours, &c., L. OLSEN, Master of the schooner Uller. Thurso, March 19, 1877.

[The vessel which had the wind free should not have been manœuvred so as to have driven the close-hauled ship ashore; and her Owners would therefore be liable for the damages incurred.]

COLLISION AND SHAREHOLDERS' LIABILITY.

SIR,-1st. Can the reserve fund of a Steam Navigation Company be seized in the case of their steamer having, by negligence, caused damage to another to a greater extent than her own value? 2nd. To what extent are shareholders responsible (shares fully paid up) under similar circumstances? It must be understood that the Company is registered under the Limited Liability Act.-Yours, &c., Cardigan, Sept. 28, 1876. W. E.

[1st. The reserve fund of a Company would form part of its assets, and in the event of an order of a Court for payment being issued, any property belonging to it might be attached. 2nd. The shareholders would have to contribute to the cost of winding up under the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1862.]

GROUNDING ON ANCHOR.

SIR,-A tugboat was lying at anchor in the Mersey in a proper and customary berth, when a collision occurred between a screw steamer and a steam flat. The latter was found to be in a sinking state, and the men in charge ran her for the shore or bank. Before reaching the latter, however, she sank upon the tugboat's anchor. On attempting to get the anchor the chain cable parted close to the anchor. Can I recover the value of the lost anchor from the Owners of the screw steamer? or should I claim from the Owners of the flat? TUGBOAT OWNER.

Liverpool, June 23, 1876.

[The wrong-doing vessel would be liable in the end, but the Owner of the flat would be the person to sue, as that was the vessel that did the damage to the cable of "Tugboat Owner."-(See page 44, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I. and the Sisters, Admiralty Court, July 9, 1875.)]

LOSS OF LIFE.

SIR, Can I claim compensation under the following circumstances?-My late husband was Second Mate of the John Dixon (s), which was sunk by collision in Malta Harbour by the Queen Annie (s). The collision took place at 4 P.M., and the John Dixon was run aground, as they all thought at the time. It proved afterwards that only the fore part of her had been aground. Two hours and a half afterwards she suddenly slid and sank. At the time of her sinking there was an Agent on board for the Underwriters, and some eight or nine of the Crew. The Agent directed those men how to save the ship's stores. My late husband and two others being in the cabin, they went down with her. Those who were on the deck jumped overboard, some being picked up by boats and others swimming to the shore. At the trial I

COLLISION.

hearing that the survivors were putting in claims for clothes lost, went up to Newcastle and saw the Secretary of the Tyne and Wear Steam Shipping Company, who was manager for the Underwriters, and told him I wished to put in a clain for life. He said he could take a claim for clothes, but not for life. I told him I could not put in a claim for clothes, as I had got my husband's clothes, except his boots or shoes, and if he, who was never out of the boat, could save his clothes, why did not those other men save theirs, there being ample time-two hours and a half-to do so? He refused to take any clain for life. They did not settle at the first trial, and it was taken to a higher Court. It is now finished, the John Dixon gaining the trial. The Underwriters are now paying those men for their clothes. The clothes I got were no use to me; in fact I sold part of them to pay for the passage of them from Liverpool. I was left with three children-the eldest eight years and the youngest three years -to make a living as best I could. My husband held a Master's certificate, and was once rewarded by the Underwriters for services rendered in a case of shipwreck when he was Captain. If they award for services and for clothes, why will they not award for life? They tell me it was not compulsory for my husband to remain. I know that; and had he been aware the vessel was in danger of sinking, I fully well know he would not have remained; but they all thought and expected she was aground ?-Yours, &c., March 24, 1877. A WIDOW.

[Although the vessel was aground at the bows for two and a half hours, the Court held that her sinking was attributable to the collision; and therefore, if the loss of the ship was due to the collision, the loss of life would be due to the same cause, and the wrongdoer would be liable.-(See pages 63 and 64, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

STEERING RULES AND LOOK-OUT.

SIR, On the 16th inst. I was beating up the Firth of Forth, and would have collided with a British schooner, which was running before the wind, if I had not sheered my vessel up, to leave him just time enough to pass under our bow, but he did not seem to take any notice of us. If we had collided it would have been his fault entirely. Soon after this a Norwegian barque came in company with a crowd of vessels, but there was no one on deck except one man at the helm. This time it was impossible for me to prevent a collision, so I hailed him, and some people came out from the cabin and some from the forecastle, and the vessel was sheered up and went under our stern, but very near. If I had not shouted to him I am quite certain we should have been in contact. It is really shameful how careless many Shipmasters are about their business and look-out when at sea. Is there no fine for being so careless if reported to the authorities?-Yours, &c., A FOREIGN MASTER.

Charlestown, May 22, 1877.

[Under Section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, all Masters of ships are bound to obey the regulations, and in case of wilful default the Master of any ship who infringes them is liable to be criminally proceeded against, and to "be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour." In case any damage to person or property occurs through the non-observance of the Regulations, "such damage shall be deemed to have been occasioned by the wilful default of the person in charge of the deck at the time" (Section 28); and unless circumstances make the departure from the Rules necessary, the ship by which such Regulations have been infringed shall be deemed to be in fault.-(Section 17, Merchant Shipping Act, 1873.)]

ANCHOR LIGHTS.

SIR,-On a ship entering the Port of Falmouth at nighttine, with her side lights burning and Pilot on board, there were vessels lying at anchor inside the entrance, and the Pilot and others on board the ship were looking out for their lights, so as to keep clear and get a berth. They perceived something close to the bows, which proved to be a ship lying at anchor with no light. The order was given, "Hard astar

[The Owner of the vessel lying at anchor without exhibiting a light would ultimately be liable for the damage done to the third vessel-(see page 44, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and the Sisters, Admiralty Court, July 9, 1875)—but if proceedings were taken against the Owner of the ship which had the Pilot on board, and she was not an exempted vessel, the Pilot might be sued. For infringing the Regulations an offender is held to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and the non-observance of the Rules renders the person in charge of the deck responsible.-(Sections 27 and 28, Merchant Shipping Act, 1862.)]

BREAKING ADRIFT IN PORT.

SIR,-While my vessel was lying at Old Land's Quay taking cargo on board, in this river, another vessel came down to complete her loading after mine was finished, and moored right opposite. During the flood at night she, floating forward first, carried away her bow-rope, and, having no breastfasts out, fell across bow on to my small boat and smashed her all to pieces. His vessel's bow anchor went through my vessel, causing both pumps to be kept going till the leak came above water on the ebb. The other vessel sustained no damage except to her small boat. What damages can I claim, having to order a new boat ?—Yours, &c. Dalbeattie, Aug. 28, 1876. SHIPOWNER.

[If the outside vessel was not properly secured and attended to, her Owner would be liable for all the damages incurred.]

REVENUE CUTTER AND FOUL BERTH. SIR,-How ought I to proceed to recover the amount of damage done to my vessel under the circumstances here stated? My vessel was at anchor, and had been for several days in the same place in Milford Harbour, when a Revenue cutter moored alongside of us, and gave my vessel a foul berth, doing us considerable damage in consequence. Port Talbot, March 14, 1876. A SHIPMASTER.

[Actions and cross-actions were recently instituted in the Admiralty Court in the case of the Bellerophon and the Flamsteed, and other trials are mentioned, with an explanation of the law, at page 203, Maritime Notes and Queries, Volume I.]

DREDGER BARGES.

SIR,-I arrived with my steamer in the roads of a Port in Durham, and, after the hoisting of the half-tide flag, proceeded further, when I met a small tugboat towing three dredger-barges in an irregular line, thereby narrowing the passage, and a collision occurred, whereby I received considerable damage. It is always understood that when the

COLLISION.

above-mentioned flag is hoisted the passage is to be kept clear for entering ships; and as these three barges could certainly not be, and were not, kept in one line, the question arises who is to be held responsible for the damage done to my vessel ? A MASTER.

[If on the hoisting of the half-tide flag the entrance to the docks is to be kept clear for incoming ships, and the harbour tug with dredgers in tow impeded the passage so as to cause damage to our Correspondent's ship, the Owners of the tug would be liable.]

[Demurrage is allowed for the detention of a vessel during repairs, and in allowing for loss of freight, wages, Port charges, &c., are deducted-(The Gazelle, Admiralty Court, May 3, 1844); and the injured party must be indemnified for all loss that has occurred in consequence of his vessel being run down by another, including Demurrage rightly calculated, on the ground of what would have been, according to the best evidence obtainable, the probable earnings of the vessel during the period of detention-(The Hebe, Admiralty Court, Feb. 22, 1847); and there may be a claim for consequential loss, as where a vessel might have been beneficially employed-(The Catharine v. Clarence, Admiralty Court, May 14, 1850); but imaginary loss of fishing profits cannot be allowed. Proof would have to be adduced to the satisfaction of the Registrar and Merchants.]

BREAKING ADRIFT IN PORT.

SIR,-I left a Scottish Port with my vessel for another Port, to finish loading my cargo there, and moored her on the opposite side of the river, the quay berth having been taken up by a vessel which was loading. On the return of the following tide we carried away our bow moorings and fell across the said vessel, doing damage to her, and destroying the boat, which was lying alongside in a very dangerous position, and which the Master admits arose through the carelessness of his own ship's Crew in leaving the boat alongside. Must I pay for the boat as well as the damage done to the ship ?-Yours, &c., Liverpool, Sept. 7, 1876.

SHIPMASTER.

[If the boat was placed in a dangerous position, and might have been hauled away to prevent it being destroyed, our Correspondent would not be liable to make good the damage done to it; but if his vessel was not properly secured, and the boat was in its usual position, and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the vessel at the wharf, compensation would have to be paid for the damage to the ship and the loss of the boat.]

COLLISION.

THE BENTON (s) AND ENTERPRISE. SIR,-In your impression of the 3rd of February is the report of the above action in the Court of Admiralty, and I wrote to Captains Baily and Nesbitt as follows:-"I have been twenty-one years at sea, and in command of the Pacific Mail boats, also Chief and Second Mate in the Home and Foreign Trade, and was last Second Mate of the Benton (s). While on watch with the Captain we both saw a sailing vessel's red light a point and a half on our starboard bow. The Rule of the Road was obeyed by hard a-porting our helm, and by so doing it caused a collision. Will you favour me with a reply, advising me how to act or manoeuvre my steamer in the event of seeing a vessel's red light in the same position, and of wind and weather? I am likely to take command of a steamer, and I feel that my certificate would be at stake providing I obeyed the Rule of the Road laid down, which I have proved to be wrong by your decision of the Benton (s) and Enterprise." What is your opinion?

Shields, Feb. 19, 1876.

SAMUEL JAMES FILL.

[The steamer's green light was opposed to the sailing vessel's red light. The look-out on board the steamer reported a red light ahead, a point and a half on the starboard bow. This would prove that the sailing vessel was crossing ahead, and, under the circumstances, it was the duty of those on board the steamer to port and pass astern, and, if necessary, ease or stop the engines. The Crew of the sailing vessel reported a green light on the port bow ahead, and it was her duty to hold her own, on the starboard tack. Our Correspondent says the helm of the Benton (s) was ported; but the Admiralty Court say her helm was starboarded, and she intended to steam across the sailing vessel's bows. If she starboarded she did wrong.]

LOSS OF CLOTHES.

SIR,-My ship was run down on the 23rd of April last. Myself and Crew lost our effects. The Owner of the ship which ran us down paid for the loss of our vessel, but I have not, nor have any of my Crew, received anything for our effects. What are we entitled to; and to whom are we to apply to recover the same ?-Yours, &c.,

ONE OF THE SUFFERERS. Sunderland, Nov. 21, 1876.

[As our Correspondent does not tell us whether the case has been settled in Court, or that the Owner of the wrongdoing vessel has claimed the law of limited liability, or the funds have been exhausted, we cannot answer his questions, except by informing him that the Owner of the vessel in fault is the party liable; and for further particulars we may refer him to three letters published at pages 64 and 68, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.]

OFF A BEACH.

SIR,-There were two vessels moored on a beach where there was no Harbour Master. The ship that was first moored sheered off, and sustained a little damage, although the party appointed to look after her was told that if the wind chopped round to the N.E. her chain would allow her to sheer towards the other, and she, being the smaller vessel, would get the worst of it; but, notwithstanding this, no notice was taken of the warning, and consequently she sustained a little damage. Her Owner claims compensation. As no one was on board either ship, would it be fair for me pay after I had warned the overlooker to shift his chain, and he did not do so?-Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER. Dec. 29, 1876.

to

[Under the circumstances stated, we are of opinion that our Correspondent would not be liable for a vessel inshore of his sheering alongside of his ship and doing damage through having too much slack on her chain.]