HAVING described the various modes of acquiring and perfecting a title to ships, we will now consider the evidence of ownership, and the duties and liabilities of owners, as between themselves and as regards others. Possession is, as we have seen, prima facie evidence of owner- PROOF OF ship (a). Under the earlier statutes relating to the registration (a) Robertson v. French, 4 East, 130; Sheriff v. Cadell, 2 Esp. 616, ante, p. 42, note (m). OWNERSHIP. Register. of ships, which did not provide that the certificate of registry should be evidence of the matters recited in it, the certificate alone was not even prima facie evidence of ownership. It was necessary to show that the party sought to be charged had either assented to, or adopted the entry (b). The later statutes have, however, made a difference with respect to the effect of the certificate of registry as evidence of ownership. The Registry Act of 1845, the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 (now repealed), contained provisions making copies of the registers evidence without the production of the originals (c). By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1855, s. 15, the copy or transcript of the register of any British ship which is kept by the chief registrar of shipping at the custom house in London, or by the registrar-general of seamen (d), under the direction of her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs or of the Board of Trade, shall have the same effect to all intents and purposes as the original register of which the same is a copy or transcript. And by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, sect. 107, every register of, or declaration made in pursuance of the second part of that act in respect of, any British ship may be proved either by the production of the original, or by an examined copy, or by a copy purporting to be certified under the hand of the registrar or other person having the charge of the original, and shall be received as primâ facie proof of all the matters contained or recited in such registers or copies thereof, and of all the matters contained in or indorsed on such certificates of registry and purporting to be authenticated by the signature of a registrar (e). The form of certificate of registry now in use mentions the names of the persons who are owners at the time of registration, and the proportions in which they are interested (ƒ). By sect. 45, all subsequent changes of ownership must be indorsed on the certificate of registry. The usual and proper mode of proving ownership is by the (b) Pirie v. Anderson, 4 Taunt. 652; Fraser v. Hopkins, 2 ib. 5; Tinkler v. Walpole, 14 East, 226. In two cases at Nisi Prius the rule was laid down without this qualification. See Stokes v. Carne, 2 Camp. 339; Cox v. Reid, R. & M. 199. (c) See also the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 99), s. 12, now repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 66). (d) Now called the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen. See M. S. Act, 1872, s. 4. (e) See The Princess Charlotte, Br. & L. 75. (f) See Appendix, "Forms," No. 9. production of the register or an examined or certified copy thereof (g), and by evidence of acts of ownership done by the alleged owner; such, for instance, as directions and interference with respect to the employment and concerns of the ship. But it will be useful to bear in mind, that the person appearing on the register as owner is not always liable to be fixed with the responsibilities of owner, whilst it frequently happens that the beneficial and not the legal owner is liable on contracts made with respect to the ship (). OWNERS. The first duty of the owners of a ship employed in the car- DUTIES OF riage of goods is to see that at the commencement of the voyage she is in a proper condition to perform it, and fit for the employment for which she is offered to the public or to the charterer. Whether the charter-party expressly require it or not, she must be tight, staunch and strong, and properly furnished for the voyage (). Sufficient stores must be on board, and the anchors As to scaand chain-cables must be of a proper description, and fit for worthiness of ship. service; nor is it any excuse for the unseaworthiness of the (g) The M. S. Act, 1854, s. 107; Hibbs v. Ross, L. R., 1 Q. B. 534, where the question was, who was liable for the negligence of those on board. But see Meyer v. Willis, 18 C. B. 886. The register is primâ facie evidence of nationality, but this may be rebutted by circumstantial evidence; The Princess Charlotte, Br. & L. 75. In a criminal prosecution, evidence that a vessel was a British ship and sailed under the British flag was held to be admissible, although no evidence was given that she had a British register; Reg. v. Seberg, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 264. The M. S. Act, 1876, s. 36, requires that the name and address of the managing owner of every British ship be registered at the custom house of the ship's port of registry. As to the effect of a similar clause in the repealed act, the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 88 (M. S. Act, 1875), see Steel v. Lester, 3 C. P. D. 121, at page 125. (h) See post, p. 87 et seq. And see Miller v. Potter Wilson, 3 Sess. Cases (4th series), 105. But as to the liabilities for penalties imposed by statute, see ante, p. 21. (i) Lyon v. Mells, 5 East, 428; Wedderburn v. Bell, 1 Camp. 1; Dale v. Hall, 1 Wilson, 281; Stanton v. Richardson, See L. R., 7 C. P. 421; 9 ib. 390; Kopitoff ship, that the owner has been himself deceived by the shipbuilder or repairer, and is ignorant of the defect (k). It is a general rule, even where there is no agreement as to time, that there must be no unreasonable or unusual delay in the commencement of the voyage (1). If a ship chartered for a particular voyage becomes unseaworthy after the commencement of the voyage, it is the duty of the owner, as between himself and the freighter, to repair, if he has the opportunity, or at least not to proceed on the voyage in an unseaworthy state (m). Thus far the owner's duty as to the condition of his ship arises at common law. His special statutory duties and liabilities as to tonnage admeasurement, deck and load-lines, survey, and deck loads have already been noticed in connection with registry (n). The Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, s. 5, provides that in every contract of service, express or implied, between the owner of a ship and the master or any seaman thereof, and in every instrument of apprenticeship whereby any person is bound to serve as an apprentice on board any ship, there shall be implied, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, an obligation on the owner of the ship, that the owner of the ship, and the master, and every agent charged with the loading of the ship, or the preparing thereof for sea, or the sending thereof to sea, shall use all reasonable means to insure the seaworthiness of the ship for the voyage at the time when the voyage commences, and to keep her in a seaworthy condition for the voyage during the same. Provided, that nothing in this section shall subject the owner of a ship to any liability by reason of the ship being sent to sea in an unseaworthy state where, owing to special circumstances, the so sending thereof to sea is reasonable and justifiable. By sect. 4 also of this act it is made a statutory misdemeanor, not punishable on summary conviction, for any person to send, or attempt to send, a British ship to sea in such unseaworthy state that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered, unless the accused proves that he used all reasonable means to insure her being sent to sea in a seaworthy (k) Wilkie v. Geddes, 3 Dow, 57; Harrison v. Douglas, 3 A. & E. 402; Holt on Shipping, 383; Sharp v. Grey, 9 Bing. 457. See also the Chain Cables and Anchors Acts, 1864, 1871, and 1874. (1) Me Andrew v. Adams, 1 Bing. N. C. 29, 38. (m) Worms v. Storey, 11 Ex. 427. state, or that her going to sea in such unseaworthy state was, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable. For the purpose of giving such proof, the accused may give evidence in the same manner as any other witness (o). A prosecution under this section may not, however, be instituted, except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade or the governor of the British possession in which such prosecution takes place (p). Sect. 6 contains also provisions for the survey and detention of British ships unfit to proceed to sea without serious damage to human life, having regard to the nature of the service for which the ship is intended, and gives an appeal to the courts of survey appointed under its provisions (q). crew. A further duty is the appointment of a proper master and Selection of The owners are bound, not only to the charterers and to master, &c. each other, but also to all whose life and property may be embarked in the ship, to exercise a fair and impartial judgment in this respect, and to select a master and crew of competent skill (»). (0) The enactment in force previously to 1875, was the M. S. Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 110), s. 11, repealed by the M. S. Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 88, s. 4, which is again repealed by the section in the text. In an indictment under the above section for sending a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state, it was held unnecessary to state that the accused knew the ship was unseaworthy or that means were not taken to make her seaworthy; Reg. v. Freeman, 9 Ir. L. R., C. L. 527.-C. C. R. And as to whether a British registered ship could be detained under the same section after transfer to a foreigner, but before the register had been closed, see Granfelt v. Lord Advocate, 1 Sess. Ca. (4th series), p. 782. See now the M. S. Act, 1876, s. 12, subs. 3. See also the repealed sections of the M. S. Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), ss. 11, 12, 13, 14, relating to the detention of ships for unseaworthiness. (p) See s. 41, as to the consent of the Board of Trade not being required before the commencement of a prosecution under the 4th section in Scotland. (2) See ante, p. 31. Former provisions contained in the M. S. Act, 1871, are repealed by the M. S. Act, 1876, s. 45, and Sched. I. part 1. The provisions now in force, enabling seamen and apprentices charged with desertion to demand a survey, will be found post, Chap. CREW. (r) Card v. Hope, 2 B. & C. 674; Law v. Hollingsworth, 7 T. R. 160; |