Part III. district, or any of the Trinity House outport districts to the port of Brest, in France, or any port or place in Europe north and east of Brest, or to the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, or Man, or from Brest, or any port or place in Europe north and east of Brest, or from the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, or Man, to any port or place in Great Britain within either of the said districts, when not carrying passengers, shall be exempted from compulsory pilotage within such districts." As to pilots for exempted vessels, see Order in Council of 5th February, 1873. 6. Miscellaneous. For the offences of pilots, and the penalties incurred by them for such offences (a)—the liability for pilotage of consignees or agents of ships, who have paid or made themselves liable to pay any other charge on account of such ships (b)—the rates of pilotage payable to Trinity House pilots (c)—the payment to the collector of customs of pilotage due from foreign ships trading to and from the port of London, and the right to detain such ships until the pilotage is paid (d) -the settlement of differences between the master and the qualified pilot of any ship trading to or from the port of London as to her draught of water, by which the rates of pilotage are regulated (e)— and the Trinity House pilot fund (f), the reader is referred to the statute. As to signalling for pilots, see 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, ss. 19, 20; M. S. Act, 1874, p. 378. As to the extent of the liability of Trinity House pilots, see ss. 372, 373 of M. S. Act, 1854. It is a settled doctrine of the Court of Admiralty that no pilot is bound to go on board a vessel in distress, to render pilot service, for mere pilotage reward. "If a pilot," said Dr. LUSHINGTON, "being told he would receive pilotage only, refused to take charge of a vessel in that condition, he would be subjected to no censure; and if he did take charge of her, he would be entitled to a salvage remuneration (g). And if a vessel out at sea, beyond the limits of pilotage ground, requires assistance, that is salvage, not pilotage" (h). There is not between the owners of a ship and a pilot whom they are compelled to employ an implied contract that the pilot shall take upon himself the risk of injury from the negligence of the shipowner's servants (i). (a) Sect. 365, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. (c) Sect. 380; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 73, s. 9; (e) Sect. 384. (f) Sect. 385. (g) The Frederick, 1 Wm. Rob. 16. (h) The Hedwig, 1 E. & A. 19. (i) Smith v. Steele, 44 L. J. Q. B. 60. 7. Exemption of Owners and Masters from Liability in case of Damage by Fault of Pilot. "No owner or master of any ship shall be answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge (k) of such ship, within any district where the employment of such pilot is compulsory (1) by law" (m). By this enactment the law, after much variety of decision (n), is finally settled in conformity with the construction put upon the corresponding section of the former Act by Dr. LUSHINGTON, in the case of the Protector. It was decided by that learned judge, on the 14th and 58th sections of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, that the exemption from liability provided by the Act was limited to the case of vessels having a pilot on board under its provisions, and where a damage was occasioned solely and entirely through the negligence, incapacity, or misconduct of the pilot on board; that the owners were protected in those cases only in which the pilot was the sole author of the injury; that the onus of proving him to have been so, lay upon them; and that if the misconduct, &c., of the master or crew, or the unmanageableness of the vessel owing to her not being in ordinary safe trim, a matter within his province (0), were contributory to it, the owners continued liable (p). This decision, overruling the case of Bennett v. Moita (q), by which, prima facie, the pilot and not the owner was held liable for negligence in the management of the vessel, was affirmed in a later case by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (r). (k) The Princeton, 47 L. J. Ad. 33; L. R. 3 P. D. 90; the Annapolis, 1 Lush. 255; the Woburn Abbey, 38 L. J. Ad. 28; the City of Cambridge, 43 L. J. Ad. 11. See (1) The Lion, 38 L. J. Ad. 51; L. R. 2 Ad. 102; the Hanna, 36 L. J. Ad. 1. Boucher v. Nordstrom, 1 Taunt. 568; the Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442; the City of Cambridge, 43 L. J. Ad. 11, where it was held that a ship was proceeding to sea within the meaning of the Mersey Dock Act. See Rodrigues v. Melhuish, 10 Ex. 110. (m) Sect. 388. Where it appeared that a collision had been caused by the swinging out of the straight line of the last of three vessels towed by a steamer, but that the swinging was caused by the improper steering of a licensed pilot on board, it was held that the owners were exonerated. The Gipsy King, 11 Jur. 397. Where a foreign ship was moored in a harbour, and a British ship, having a licensed pilot on board, in anchoring near, ran foul of her and caused damage, it was held that some blame being imputable to the pilot, but not evidence enough to fix any blame on the master or the crew of the British ship, her owners were exonerated. The Atlas, 5 Ecc. & Mar. 50; see the Hibernian, 42 L. J. Ad. 8, a (n) Bennett v. Moita, 7 Taunt. 258; (0) The Argo, Swab. 462. To the pilot on board the tow. (p) The Protector, 1 Wm. Rob. 45; the (r) Hammond v. Rogers, 7 Moore, P. C. C. Chap. 7. Part III. Where col In an elaborate endeavour (a) to reconcile the apparently conflicting decisions of Carruthers v. Sydebotham (b), in the Queen's Bench, and the Att.-Gen. v. Case (c), in the Exchequer, Dr. LUSHINGTON laid down the rule, that no one should be chargeable with the act of another, who is not an agent of his own choice-a rule to which he afterwards adhered (d) in the case of a ship by which damage had been done in obeying the orders of a harbour-master, acting under the authority of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 (e). A defendant, relying upon the statutory exemption, must prove his case (f); it is not enough to show that a pilot was on board (g). The fault or incapacity of a waterman employed by the master to assist the pilot, but who misunderstands or disobey's the pilot's orders, is not the fault of the pilot (h). As a general rule, it is the master's duty to repeat, if necessary, the pilot's orders, and for every manœuvre so carried out the pilot remains solely responsible (i). The course of the ship is within the province of the pilot, and if the circumstances, in his judgment, be such as justify a departure from a statutory rule-e.g., to keep to the starboard side of a narrow channel -it is the master's duty to submit (k). Cases, however, may arise in which it is not only the master's right but his duty to resume his authority. If the pilot should be plainly incompetent, through intoxication or other cause, and the vessel should be endangered by his mismanagement, the master is bound to interfere (1). If a collision occurs abroad within the jurisdiction of some foreign lision abroad. country, and while the ship doing the damage is in the compulsory charge of a pilot, such ship cannot be sued in England, even though she is liable for the damage by the laws of that foreign country (m). In an action of damage in the Court of Admiralty, if the only where defence defence is that the collision was caused by the negligence of a pilot that pilot to taken by compulsion of law, the defendants, if successful in estabblame. lishing this defence, are entitled to costs (n); but it is otherwise in this Court if there are other defences, Costs in action 8. Pilotage of Foreign Ships. The regulations of the statute respecting compulsory pilotage apply to foreign ships in British ports (0). (i) The Admiral Boxer, Swab. 193. (k) The Argo, Swab. 462. (1) The Girolamo, 3 Hagg. 176; the Lochlibo, 3 Wm. Rob. 321; the Duke of Manchester, 10 Jur. 863; Hammond v. Rogers, 7 Moore, P. C. C. 160; Rodriguez v. Melhuish, 2 W. R. 518. (m) The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193. (n) The Juno, 45 L. J. Ad. 105. This rule is not adopted in the Common Law Divisions of the High Court of Justice. (0) Sect. 381. The Annapolis, Lush. 308, 330. Chap. 8, -- CHAPTER VIII. OF THE CONVEYANCE OF PASSENGERS IN MERCHANT SHIPS; AND SECT. 1. The Rights and Duties of the Master and Passengers, p. 161. 2. Contracts for the Conveyance of Passengers, and Cases decided upon them, 3. Passengers Acts, p. 166. 4. Passenger Steamers, p. 169. 5. Provisions for the Prevention of Misconduct and Accidents on Passenger Ships, THE increase of intercourse between the U. K. and distant countries, and the extent to which emigration has of late years been carried (p), suggest the propriety of adverting to that branch of the law of merchant ships and seamen which relates to the conveyance of passengers. It will be convenient to consider the matters connected with this subject under two heads: the rights and duties of the master and passengers; and the regulations which the legislature has established in relation to them. 1. Of the Rights and Duties of the Master and Passengers. The grave responsibility of the person to whose skill and conduct life and property are entrusted on the ocean, and the situations of unforeseen emergency to which he may be reduced in exerting himself for their preservation, render it necessary that he should be invested with large, and, for the time at least, unfettered authority. Obedience to this authority, in all matters within its scope, is a duty which should be cheerfully discharged by every passenger on board the ship. Whatever is necessary for the security of the vessel, the discipline of the crew, the safety of all on board, the master may lawfully require, not only of the ship's company, who have expressly contracted to obey him, but of those also whom he has engaged to carry to their destination, on the implied condition of their submission to his rule (9). The exercise of power thus undefined must, at his peril, be restricted to the necessity of the case; and, on the ground of such necessity, and within its limits, he may enforce and justify orders which would otherwise expose him to censure, to civil liabilities, and to punishment. A passenger who is found on board in time of danger is bound, at (p) As to whether shipowners carrying passengers beyond the seas are common carriers within the custom of the realm, see Bennett v. The Peninsular Steam-boat Co., 6 C. B. 775. See post, Part IV., ch. 4. M Part III. the master's call, to do works of necessity in defence of the ship, if attacked, and for the preservation of the lives of all on board (a); yet, as he may lawfully, except under peculiar circumstances, depart the ship, should he voluntarily remain, at the risk of his personal safety, to assist her in her distress, he may be entitled to remuneration, in the nature of salvage, for his service (b). In an action of assault and false imprisonment on board an East Indiaman, in a voyage from Bombay to Calcutta, it appeared that the plaintiff was a passenger in the gunner's mess, and that the defendant was captain of the ship. Near the Cape of Good Hope, two strange sail were descried in the offing, supposed to be enemies. The defendant immediately mustered all hands on deck, and assigned to every one his station. The plaintiff, with the other passengers, he ordered on the poop, where they were to fight with small arms. This order all readily obeyed, except the plaintiff, who, conceiving he had been illused by the defendant some time before, in being forbidden to walk on the poop, positively refused to go there, but offered to fight in any other part of the ship with his messmates. The defendant, for this contumacy, ordered him to be carried upon the poop, and kept him there in irons during the whole night. Next morning, no enemy appeared, and the ship arrived safe at St. Helena, where the plaintiff quitted her. Lord ELLENBOROUGH at first said that he did not know that the confinement of the plaintiff was not necessary, and therefore justifiable; but when it came out that he had been kept all night in irons on the poop, he clearly held that the defendant had exceeded the limits of his authority (c) In all such cases, the propriety of the conduct which is questioned will in general be most satisfactorily determined by bringing an action in one of the common law divisions of the High Court of Justice (d). 2. Contracts for the Conveyance of Passengers, and Cases decided upon them. In the case of an express contract, the rights of the parties will cf course be governed by its terms, but the usage of particular trades and voyages may often influence their interpretation. Where the contract is not express, it may be evidenced by such usage. A few miscellaneous cases on this subject may properly be noticed here (e). (a) Newman v. Walters, 3 Boss. & Pull. 612. (b) Ibid., and see the Two Friends, 1 Rob. Rep. 285; the Beaver, 3 Rob. Rep. 292; the Joseph Harray, 1 Rob. Rep. 306. (c) Boyce v. Bayliffe, 1 Campb. 58. (d) See the Ruckers, 4 Rob. Ad. Rep. 73. It appears from the Black Book of the Admiralty, that jurors were formerly summoned to the Admiralty Sessions: “Si un homme est endite qu'il a batu une personne. ou qu'il est un commun bateur el malfaiseur en eau salée, en tel cas s'il est convict par 12, il sera emprisonné par 21 jours, et plus il sera fin au Roy."-Bl. B. Admiralty, art. 12. See as to the present jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, see ante, p. 3, note (e); Preface to this Edition. (e) See, upon the question how far parol evidence of usage is admissible for the purpose of annexing incidents to or explaining the meaning of written contracts, the judg |