« 이전계속 »
ment are of a remedial nature, a foreigner may avail himself of them.
Thus in the case of the lllilford, an American ship, in which the master had commenced a suit in the Court of Admiralty against the freight, for wages due to him in that capacity. It appeared that he had originally shipped as second mate, and having, 011 the death of the first mate and loss of the master, taken upon himself the command of the vessel, claimed the wages as master for the period of his acting as such.
The owners appeared under protest, contending that although a seaman might sue for his wages, a master was only entitled so to do under the 191st section of the recent Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and that this Act was not applicable to the case of a foreigner.
The Court in giving judgment, observed, “That the case of foreign seamen had been previously fully considered, and the rule laid down‘ that notice should always be given to the Consul of the Foreign State to which the foreign seamen belonged, although it did not bind itself in all cases to be governed by the objection to the proceeding which might be raised by such consul. (In the present case this notice had been duly given, and no objection raised on the part of the American Consul.) It then referred to the case of Don v. Lip'man’, and expressed its opinion that the foreign master was entitled to sue in that court for his wages, adding, that with regard to the 191st section of the Merchant Shipping Act referred to,
‘Every master of a ship shall . . . . have the same
rights, &c. . . . . for the recovery of his wages which
. any seaman has;’ no one could doubt that the
1 P. 72
s. G. Mch. 29, 1858. ,
1 Golubchick, I W. R. 143.
3 W. Rob. 191.
2 Sp. 75.
words were broad enough to cover the case of a foreign vessel.” It accordingly overruled the protest, and allowed the cause to proceed.
UNDER' THESE REGULATIONS it is left, as it was before, to all parties concerned, to supply themselves with whatever description of lantern they may see fit to adopt, provided the conditions mentioned in the regulations are carried out.
The light at the masthead of a steamer must show an uniform light over an arc of 20 points of the compass, and throw a light 10 points on each side of the ship.
The side lights of all vessels must be visible at a distance of at least 2 miles, show an uniform light over an arc of 10 points of the compass, and throw the light 2 points on each side of the ship.
When at anchor the light must be in a globular lantern of 8 inches in diameter, and show a clear light all round at a distance of at least 1 mile.
In the case of the Mangerton ‘, the light exhibited was a triangular-shaped lantern, fastened at the end of the bowsprit, and showing, by means of lenses, the three lights, bright in front, green on the starboard, and red on the port side; but such a light the Court determined was not a compliance with the Admiralty Regulations.
GREAT CARE must be taken that the lights are kept properly burning.
In the case of the Rob Boy’ the Court observed on the necessity and importance of strict attention to this sub
‘ ject; and in that of the Sylph’, when the question was
raised whether one of the lights had not gone out, it observed, though the vessel proceeded against might not be in any degree to blame for the light going out, it might be an accident, yet it was the same, as regards the other party, as if it had arisen from negligence, and ultimately decided that the Sylph had been misled by this circumstance, and was in consequence justified in considering the other vessel to have been at anchor.
1 P. 60. 2 P. 39. 3 P. 41.
Again, in the case of the ll/[oscow which came into collision with the Alma, a steamer, the latter vessel not having at the time her side lights lighted.
The Court expressed its opinion that the Moscow, seeing a single white light on board the Alma was justified in considering her to be a sailing-vessel, and acting accordingly. It therefore pronounced its decree in her favour.
March 8, 1858.
GREAT ATTENTION must also be paid to the fitting of Screens.
the side lights with proper screens. These must project at least three feet forward on the inboard side; the object being to prevent both lights being seen at the same time from any direction but that of right a-head.
THE NEOESSITY OF THE CASE imposes upon each vessel the proof of its having complied with the regulations‘, the presumption in each case being in favour of afiirmative over negative evidence, as it is very possible that lights might have been exhibited, although the other party might not have seen them ’.
Thus in the case of the Herefordshire, in which the question was raised, whether a light had been exhibited, the Court observed——“ It is nothing for the other ship to say she did not see the light, there are many reasons why those on board the other vessel might not see it.
1 Swanland, p. 40 ; 2 Sp. 107. ‘~‘ Argo, p. 31.
Dec. 21, 1857.
Time and distance.
Mch. 4, 1 853.
3 Ca. 13.
‘ ANOTHER QUESTION which demands attention is the time when and distance at which the light ought to be exhibited ?
In the case of the Pembroke, that vessel a steamer came into collision with the brig the Lady Sale, and it was stated in the preliminary act on her part, that the distance at which the Lady Sale was seen was only half a cable’s length.
The Court, in giving judgment, observed, “ That this statement was not supported by the evidence in the case, and added that it entirely acceded to the argument addressed by the Admiralty Advocate on the present occasion, that you are not to take any measure the moment you descry a light. The wisest way is to take time to consider what measure to adopt. But the question is, had they not ample time, and ought not this screw steamer to have taken ample measures as soon as possible ? It could not conceive, considering the facilities a screw steamer has as compared with a sailing ship for getting out of the way, but that if those on board the Pembroke had adopted the measures they ought to have adopted, and in reasonable time, this collision would have been avoided.”
In the case of the Colon ta‘, the Court observed, “ that with reference to the timely precaution which a vessel ought to take, it was the duty of the Colonic, in that case, with the wind free, to have made certain of avoiding the other vessel, and not to have kept her course as she did till she was within a cable and a half ’s length.”
The case of the Clyde ’ was that of a collision between that vessel, a steamer, and the schooner Catharina, the
2 Sp. 30.
1P. 102. 5 P. 11.
master of the latter vessel had been at first in doubts whether the light was on shore or not, but exhibited his lantern as soon as it was known that the light previously seen was that of a steamer.
The Court pronounced in favour of the Catharina.
In the case of the Norval and Colne ‘, the Court observed, that although the law required vessels to port when there was danger of a collision, yet the rule was not to be carried to an absurdity, and one vessel is not to cross the course of another, if by keeping their respective courses they might have passed in safety.
IT MAY ALSO be observed, that in the first report‘2 on this subject, it was stated that a green light might be distinctly seen at the distance of three, and the red one at the distance of two miles in the ordinary state of the
atmosphere, and that this distance was amply sufficient
to afford time for determining the manner in which the vessel was steering, and adopting the steps necessary to avoid a collision. '
In the case of the Peninsula, that vessel, a steamer, had come into collision with a schooner, the Imperial Prince, and attributed the accident to the circumstance of the schooner not having a proper light, and to its not being shown in such a position and in sufficient time to enable the steamer to avoid it.
The Court, however, observed; “It is perfectly clear that this was a sufficient light, and exhibited in time. The witness, John Anderson, states, ‘It would be about three minutes before the collision when that was shown, and I should say that there was then time enough to have avoided it.’ The whole of the evidence is in
1 P. 119. 2 P. 14.
July so, 1857.
July 10, 1857.