Hay.

But where the consignee desired that the goods might not be landed on the wharf against which the vessel 4 Term Rep. 260, Syeds v was moored, notwithstanding which, the master persisted in doing so under an idea that there was a lien for wharfage dues, he was considered clearly liable. And where there was shown to be a custom on the River Thames that a master should see goods safely loaded in a lighter, it was not considered sufficient for him to say that he had not hands enough to board to take the necessary care. Though after the loading, it seems, he is not bound to see them delivered on the wharf.

Amount and Limitation of Responsibility of Owners

and Masters.

Peake's Cases, 150, Catley v. Wintringham,

Abbott, p. 250.

Robinson v.
Turpin.

James.

The next question is the amount of damage which the owner or master is bound to pay. First, with respect to goods, the prime cost with the charges of shipping should be paid the merchant in case of loss, but not the premiums of insurance which he may have disbursed, unless it be clearly shown, that the goods have advanced 4 Campb. 112, in value. If the master be obliged to part with some of Parker v. the articles to raise money, and the ship reach her place of destination, the clear value which the goods would have fetched there must be tendered to the freighter. Abbott, 245, But the merchant may insist upon the price of the goods at the time of sale, which he may deduct from the freight; and where the goods were sold for more at an intermediate port than would have been got for them at their place of destination, the Court would not set aside the award of mercantile men, which directed, that the merchants should have the sum actually obtained for

them.

By the old law, the owner of a ship was responsible to the full amount of the damage which the freighter might have sustained, and the master is still wholly answerable for his neglect or dishonesty. Where the

Alers v. Tobin.

1 Starkie, 499,

Campbell v.
Thompson. See
10 East, 378,
Hunter v. Prin

сер.

3 Barnewall & Alderson, 237,

Richardson v.
Nourse.

2 Chancery Cases, 238, Anonymous.

owner, however, bound his ship and tackle valued at a certain price, he was not held liable on the master's committing barratry beyond such value.

But as the owner's full liability tended to discourage the increase of shipping, the 7th Geo. 2, c. 15, was passed. The responsibility was confined by that Act to the value of the ship, with her appurtenancesand freight, in cases of embezzlement, secreting, or making away with goods and merchandizes by the master or mariners. Further, the freighters were to receive a compensation in proportion to their losses, and a bill of discovery was permitted to obtain a disclosure of the aggregate damage, the value of the ship, and a fair distribution. Yet, such person so filing his bill must produce an affidavit denyBy Sect. 3. ing any collusion with the defendants and, according as the Court shall direct, must offer to pay the value of ship and freight.

Sect. 4.

1 Term Rep. 18, Sutton v. Mitchell.

Another section expressly declares, that the master and mariners shall in nowise be discharged by the making of the statute.

But the owners were still dissatisfied, for if any treachery were practised by persons not belonging to the ship, their danger remained as great as ever. Though a robbery perpetrated by intelligence given to thieves by a mariner was held to be within the Act. Neverthless, another act (1) passed restricting their responsibility in cases where no one on board the ship might be privy to the plunder.

And, now, the same safeguard is extended in case of any "act, neglect, matter, or thing done, omitted, or occasioned without the fault or privity of such owner or owners." (m)

66

(1) 26 Geo. 3, c. 86.

(m) 53 Geo. 3, c. 159. The 1st section speaks of a ship with her appurtenances: it has been decided, that whatever

The statute goes on to provide, that the value of the carriage of any goods, belonging to the owner of the ship, and the hire due, or to grow due, except hire of a ship hired for time, which may not be earned till six calendar months after the loss, shall be considered as freight (n); that where there may happen to be more than one loss during the voyage, or at the end of it, and before the commencement of a fresh one, each such loss shall be satisfied in the same manner as though there had been only one; that the responsibility of master and mariners should continue as before; but that the owners

is on board of a vessel for the purpose of forwarding her adventure will come under the denomination of appurtenances, and, therefore, tackle, apparel, boats, and stores employed in the Greenland fisheries were deemed liable to make good a loss occasioned by collision. 5 Barnewall & Cresswell, 156, Gale v. Laurie; 1 Haggard Admy. Rep. 109.

The fishing stores of a whaler are within the act. 1 Marshall on Insurance, 239, Dundee ship.

Lighters and gabbers are not within the act. 1 Bligh, 573, Hunter v. M'Gowan.

It has also been determined, that the circumstance of a master being also a part-owner, and sued as such with other owners, does not deprive the owners last mentioned of the benefit proposed by the first section. 2 Barnewall & Alderson, 2, Wilson v. Dickson.

(n) In calculating the respective values of ship and freight, it is observable, that the extent of responsibility is the ship's value at the time of sale, and the amount of freight she would have earned had she performed her voyage, but not an anticipated freight at the time of her sailing. 1 Bingham, 465, Cannan v. Meaburn; 2 Barnewall & Alderson, 2, Wilson v. Dickson.

And freight paid in advance is to be reckoned as part of the owner's liability. 2 Barnewall & Alderson, 2, Wilson v. Dickson.

Sect. s.

E

6 Geo. 4, c. 125.

Sect. 2. Sect. 5.

Sect. 7.

ect. 11.

Sect. 12.

Sect. 13.

Sect. 28.

of vessels employed solely in rivers or inland navigation, or of any ship not duly registered should not be entitled to any benefit. The manner of filing bills for discovery with the consequent proceedings in equity are then fully set out, as may be seen in the Act, which is merely referred to as one of great public importance, since it does not consist with the plan of this work to discuss matters of practice at any length.

PILOTAGE.

Who are to grant Licences, &c.

There is a new Act consolidating the Law of Pilotage. The power of licensing pilots is committed to the Trinity House, Deptford, who, in common with the Trinity-houses of Hull and Newcastle, are to appoint subcommissioners (o) to examine pilots (p), and to act upon their certificates of qualification. Notice of appointment is to be affixed to the Trinity House, London, and to the different custom-houses at the ports. The corporation at Deptford may make by-laws, and annex penalties for the breach of them, but the approbation of the two Chief Justices must previously be had. And before either of those judges are applied to, the by-laws must be transmitted to the Privy Council and the Commissioners of Customs, and the latter are to order copies to be hung up at the custom-houses, both before and after their confirmation. Unless altered by this Act, all by-laws made under the 52 George III. are to continue valid.

(0) The harbours of Ramsgate, Dover, Sandwich and Margate are particularly mentioned as places for careful pilotage, and strict qualifications and examinations are required in respect of them. Sect. 39.

(p) See the oath, schedule B. at the end of the statute, and sect. 17.

The corporation are also intrusted with power to reward any unlicensed pilot who shall act in the absence of one licensed, provided no licensed pilot shall, to the knowledge of the other party, have offered to take charge of the vessel.

Licences under proper examinations may also be granted by the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and the Cinque Ports pilots are to be under his control. He is, at his court of Loadmanage (q), to make such regulations as he shall think fit, with the annexations of penalties; but the Privy Council may correct, amend, or enlarge his rules. The number of Cinque Ports pilots is declared to be 120 so soon as they shall be reduced by death or otherwise to that quotation, and without special permission from the Privy Council upon the recommendation of the Trinity House the Lord Warden may not fill up more than each alternate vacancy. But with permission as before mentioned the number may be extended and kept up to 180; provided again, that there be an alternate vacancy filled up in time of peace.

The Pilots-their Qualifications, Duties, &c.

They must have acted three years before they can be suffered to pilot any ship drawing more than fourteen feet water, and this applies both to Trinity House and Cinque 1 ort pilots.

Their licences, renewable, are to be granted annually; but they must execute a bond promising obedience to the by-laws, and these permissions may be annulled, revoked, or suspended at the pleasure of the Trinity House, or Lord Warden. But there is an appeal to the

(9) See sect. 20, by which this court is empowered to award certain compensation to pilots of the upper book, out of the profits of lower book pilots.

Sect. 48.

Sect. 14, 15.

Sect. 21.

Sect. 22.

Sect. 23.

Sect. 3.

Sect. 16.
Sect. 10.

Sect. 27.

Sect. 29.