piracy will not throw any responsibility upon the parties, ment, 248, Pickunless the master be negligent, the taking by pirates Style Rep. 132, ering v. Barkley, being accounted a peril of the sea. same case; Comberbatch, 56, Barton v. Wolliford. And see 1, Ventris, 190, Morse v. Slue; Abbott, p. 256, Bever v. Tomlinson. Buller v. Fisher; Espinasse, 67; So where one ship was run down by another through Abbott, p. 255, mere accident; where a master having concealed his British licence, under the idea of having met a hostile ship, whereupon his vessel was taken in tow, and shipped water under a press of sail; where a vessel was stranded by the gross neglect of the crew of another; where on the return of the tide to a dry harbour a ship took the ground and was damaged; these casualties were all held to be perils of the sea. 4 Taunton, 126, 2 Barnewall & Alderson, 315, Whitmore. But where a ship was laid down upon Gosport beach, and upon the returning of the tide was found with her planks burst; and again, where a vessel had been drawn on the land, and she bilged; it was held that these were accidents on the shore, and not by perils of the ocean. It was not determined, where a master fired by mistake into a ship and sunk her, whether this was a loss by perils of the sea, because the loss was covered by express 5 Maule & Selwords in another part of the policy of insurance. Where a vessel was sunk in the Trent by striking against an anchor, which lay under water without a buoy, the owners were held responsible for damage done to the goods. The usual course of the West India Trade is to land goods in boats, and the following wording of a clause in a bill of lading gave rise to a law-suit: "The act of God, &c. and all and every other dangers, &c. save risk of boats, so far as ships are liable thereto, excepted." A shallop which was conveying some goods to shore being dashed in pieces, it was contended that the ship-owner was liable by virtue of the exception, but the Court thought otherwise; they said, that the restriction, "so Rowcroft v. Dunsmore, before Lord Kenyon, cited 3 Taunton, 227. 1 Starkie, 138, wyn, 461, Cul- Abbott, p. 245, the Trent and Mersey Navigation v. Wood. 1 Broderip & Bingham, 454, Johnston v Benson. 8 Term Rep. 531, Ellis v. Turner. 2 New Rep. 182, Fetcher v. Braddick; and see 2 Starkie, 438, Scott v. Scott. Ditchell. far as ships are liable thereto," decided the case, for had the goods been lost on board the ship, the defendant would not have been answerable, therefore, there being no enlarged responsibility, he could not be liable for a similar loss in boats. Independently of these exceptions a ship-owner is in general responsible, for the maxim is, respondent superior. If, therefore, any loss should arise he must bear the consequences, and the same result will take place if any injury is done by his vessel to another. And if it be a legal undertaking, the owner will be bound without his knowledge, as where there was a warAbbott, p. 98, ranty that a ship should depart with convoy. Though Rinquist v. the owner will not be liable for an illegal act on the part of his agent, for no man can say, that the master by taking in goods of his own head can make the owners liable. Neither has the captain any power to substitue a voyage in the room of one which has been agreed on between his owners and the freighters. Cases Tempore 194, Boucher v. 1 Taunton, 391, Dewell v. Moxon. 2 Campb. 529, Burgon v. Sharpe. 1 Campb. 451, Gosling v. Higgins. 2 Chitty Rep. 397, Shirwell v. Shiplock. Nor can he engage without the consent of his employer that goods shall be conveyed free of freight, for such a transaction is not according to the usual employment of the ships. A ship-owner is answerable for the safety of goods though they be condemned under a mistaken seizure by the excise, and though the sentence be reversed, the remedy of the proprietor being against the officers; but if the consignee be not ready to receive the freight, the owners are not liable. We shall find the responsibility of owners for the incompetency of pilots very much limited by a recent enactment, and with reference to their liabilities in cases and see 1 Taun- of convoy, the subject will be considered in the Section 6 George 4, ch. 125, sect. 55; ton, 568, Row cher v. Noid- upon strom Insurance. Duties of Owners. One of the principal duties which a ship-owner should fulfil, both for his own sake and that of the public, is to provide a competent and skilful master; for there is scarcely any case in which he will not be held amenable for the actions and conduct of his agent. It is very incumbent on him to see that his ship be sea-worthy, for there is an implied contract, in spite of any notice that he may choose to give, that he shall provide a vessel tight and fit for her voyage. So that although a man gave 5 East, 428, notice that he would not be amenable for any damage Lyon v. Mells. unless occasioned by want of ordinary care in the master or crew of the vessel, he was held liable for damage arising from leakage. But where a hoy was 1 Strange, 128, sunk going through bridge by a sudden gust of wind, Amies v. Stethe defendant was acquitted; for no carrier need have vens. a new carriage for every journey, and in this case the hoy would probably have outlived any ordinary accident. Of Part-owners. The relation between persons who jointly own a ship is not much unlike that of partnership, inasmuch as 1 Campb. 329, the profit and loss are shared amongst them; but the Dry v. Boswell. subject can be scarcely entered into before questions of dispute between the proprietors are presented to our attention. Sometimes a party will agree to employ a ship, whilst another will resist the proposed voyage; and some considerable pains have been taken to reconcile or provide against these unprosperous differences. To effect this, the Court of Admiralty is accustomed to require a stipulation from the majority in value of the proprietors, who, by the law of England, are permitted to embark the joint concern upon any probable design. A bond is given conditioned either to return the ship, or pay the dissentient owners the amount of Carthew, 63, per Ilolt, C.J. Ambler, 255, Horn v, Gilpin. Skinner, 230. 1 Levinz, 29, their shares, and the penalty is double the appraised The arrest of the ship till security is given is strongly Yet, if the ship be sunk and lost, it will be a ques- (x) A fortiori, the Court of Admiralty may detain a vessel (y) It seems that the case of Strelley v. Winson is the same through the defendant, and if so, the dissenting part- Abbott, p. 72, owner will recover his share. Barnardiston v. from Sir Peter King's MS. cases. However, although the power above mentioned is now conceded to the Admiralty Court by repeated decisions (2), a party cannot be compelled to sell his share, and a prohibition will issue if such jurisdiction 1 Wilson, 101, be assumed. Supposing there to be an equal division of opinions amongst the owners, and an equality of interest, it is said by learned men that the same course may be sued as is related above. pur Nevertheless, farther, it is necessary that the amount of the respective shares should be apparent, so that a plaintiff was successful in his application to Chancery for an injunction to restrain a ship from sailing, where it was disputed whether he was entitled to one-fourth or one-third of the joint property. Ouston v. Eebden. Abbott on Shipping, p. 75, citing Godolphin & Molloy. 2 Merivale, 77, Halyv.Goodson. Reed . White. These disputes are frequently set at rest in another way, namely, by the appointment of a ship's husband; who becomes, therefore, the managing owner, and to whom the cares of employing trades-people and appointing officers are delegated. If a workman think 5Espinasse, 122, proper to enter into a personal contract with such an individual, and make a settlement of accounts with him, the other owners are thereby discharged; as for example, if a bill be dishonoured after such an adjustment (a). But where the tradesman elects to proceed against all, a joint-owner to discharge his liability must give express notice; and thus, where one of three proprietors gave the two others notice that he should Nisi Prius, 586, (z) It was much contested at first. See the authorities collected in Abbott on Shipping, 5th ed. pp. 72-74. (a) For some observations upon a ship's husband, see 2 Barnewall & Cresswell, 661, Card v. Hope; Abbott on Shipping, 5th ed. p. 69. Holt's Cases at Gleadon v. Tinkler, |