i-law.com

TIBBALS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Master and servant-Superannuation- Basis of assessment-War bonus- Rafter on permanent staff of Surrey Commercial Dock Company-Pension scheme providing (inter alia) that "for the purpose of computing the superannuation allowance in accordance with the prescribed scale the salary or wages of the officer shall . . . be deemed to be at the rate of the actual yearly salary or wages paid to him at the time of his superannuation or retirement exclusive of any gratuities allowances for house or other additions"-Undertakings of dock companies (including Surrey Commercial Dock Company) taken over by and vested in Port of London Authority by virtue of Port of London Act, 1908-Contention by plaintiff that war bonus was "salary or wages" within the meaning of scheme - Ejusdem generis rule-Whether words of exclusion were apt to cover war bonus-Notice given from time to time by Port of London Authority to plaintiff that bonus not to count for pension -No deduction made from war bonus in respect of superannuation.

STEAMER COLIN W., LTD., AND ST. LAWRENCE TANKERS, LTD. v. WAKE-WALKER. [H.M.S. "DRAGON."]

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 11

Collision between steamship Maplebranch and H.M.S. Dragon in Montreal Harbour in broad daylight-Maplebranch moored alongside another vessel at quayside-Dragon manoeuvring to berth in Market Basin - Contention by H.M.S. Dragon that collision was due to inevitable accident; that as she neared the entrance to the Basin the motor schooner Saguenay Trader swung out across her course, compelling the Dragon to stop and reverse her engines, and resulting in her being carried by a strong cross-current on to the Maplebranch - Onus of proof - Majority decision of Supreme Court of Canada (upholding Demers, J.) that the Dragon had failed to discharge the onus of showing that the collision was due to an inevitable accident; further, that she should have appreciated sooner the movements of the Saguenay Trader and was improperly navigated as she approached the Basin-Appeal by Dragon.

THE "MOUNT CYNTHOS."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 18

CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. L. & B. ASSENHEIM.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 27

Motor insurance-Non-disclosure-Claim by plaintiff insurance company for a declaration that they were entitled to avoid a policy issued to defendants- Evidence that defendants, insured in respect of two Studebaker lorries with other insurers, had later insured a Chevrolet lorry with plaintiffs; that subsequently the other insurers had written to defendants' brokers informing them that they would not invite renewal of the policy in respect of the Studebaker lorries; and that the two Studebaker lorries were then insured with plaintiffs-Conflict of evidence as to whether plaintiffs were informed by defendants' brokers that the other insurers had refused to renew-Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10.

PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD. v. ROBIN HOOD MILLS, LTD. [THE "THORDOC."]

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 33

Limitation of liability-Actual fault or privity-Stranding of respondents' vessel on voyage from Port Arthur (Ont.) to Montreal - Loss of and damage to cargo-Deviation-Faulty compass - Action for cargo damage brought by appellant cargo-owners- Claim by respondents for immunity under Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1927-"Faults or errors in navigation"-Decision of Canadian Courts in appellants' favour that the Act did not operate to free the respondents from liability, on the grounds (1) that they had failed to discharge the onus of showing that due diligence had been exercised to make the vessel seaworthy in respect of her compass; (2) that the vessel had deviated unreasonably -Award of damages-Limitation petition brought by respondents - Opposed by appellants - Appeal against order of Canadian Courts granting limitation - Meaning of "actual fault or privity"-Unseaworthiness by reason of faulty compass -Evidence that respondents had employed a competent adjuster-Incompetence of crew-Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1927, Sect. 6- Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 503.

ASCOTT v. CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 41

Burglary insurance-Proposal form-Incorrect answer-Proof of loss by burglary-Claim by plaintiff against defendant insurers-Allegation that property was stolen from business premises-Defence: that there was no burglary as alleged; and that proposal form contained incorrect answer concerning cancelment or refusal to renew.

SCRUTTONS, LTD. v. RADONICICH.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 43

Workmen's compensation - Industrial disease-Dermatitis produced by dust or liquids-Workman employed by plaintiffs-Compensation paid-Plaintiffs reimbursed by defendant under letter of indemnity-Appeal to medical referee-Certificate (Form P (i)) that workman "is not now suffering from dermatitis"-No mention in certificate of possibility of recurrence or of increased susceptibility to disease- Whether certificate amounted to a conclusive certificate that there was no possibility or probability of a further attack - Recurrence of disease - Liability of plaintiffs - Claim to be indemnified by defendant-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 43.

E. TIMM & SON, LTD. v. NORTHUMBRIAN SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 45

Bill of lading-Unseaworthiness-Bunkers -"Faults or errors in navigation" -Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners for loss of cargo shipped at Vancouver for Hull-Vessel, having left Colon, bound for St. Thomas to bunker-Inadequacy of bunkers-Decision of captain to deviate to Port Royal, Jamaica, for bunkers-Stranding of vessel on the Morant Cays in normal weather-Total loss of vessel and cargo-Evidence as to navigation of vessel prior to stranding-Whether shipowners had failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy in regard to her bunkers-Plaintiffs' contention that insufficient bunkers were carried for stage of voyage from Vancouver to St. Thomas, or, assuming a fresh stage commenced at Colon, for voyage from Colon to St. Thomas- Dispute as to bunker requirements for such a voyage-Seaworthiness by stages -Incorporation in bill of lading of Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1927-Sects. 4, 6, 7.

"BORNHOLM" (OWNERS) v. EXPORTHLEB, MOSCOW.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 59

Arbitration - Special case - Refusal by arbitrators to state-Dispute between shipowners and charterers-Allegation by shipowners that vessel was ordered by charterers to unsafe port to load -Damage by stranding during gale -Appeal by charterers from order of Judge in Chambers dismissing appeal from order of Master refusing to direct arbitrators to state a special case for the opinion of the Court-Whether any question of law arose upon consideration by arbitrators of shipowners' allegation that port of loading was unsafe-Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 9.

MERCHANTS' & MANUFACTURERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. DAVIES AND OWEN.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 61

Motor insurance-Practice-Discovery of documents-Policy issued by respondent insurance company to first defendant -Third party (second defendant) injured-Action brought by respondents for declaration that they were entitled to avoid policy on ground of non-disclosure or misrepresentation- Declaration opposed by defendants- Interlocutories-Application by defendants for further discovery of documents in plaintiffs' possession "relating to proposals or applications for insurance of motor car and motor cycle risks made to them by persons disclosing the fact that they have been once convicted of driving a motor car or motor cycle without a licence and once convicted of driving a motor car or motor cycle in a dangerous manner or of one or other of such offences"- Materiality-Relevancy-Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10-Application refused by Goddard, J.-Appeal by defendants.

WILFRED PENDER AND OTHERS v. BULK OIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. [THE "PASS OF LENY."]

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 65

Negligence - Fire in Poole Harbour - Escape of petrol-Consolidated action for damages for personal injuries and for fire damage to yachts and speedboats -Allegation that petrol was permitted to escape from defendants' oil tanker Pass of Leny during discharge at wharf-Onus of proof-Whether fire due to petrol or to a species of heavy oil-Evidence as to flow of tide in vicinity of Pass of Leny and of method of discharge practised on board- Alleged muddled manipulation of valves connected with pumping apparatus -Other possible sources of escape of petrol.

THE "BEATSA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 85

Salvage-Services rendered by tugs Crested Cock and Sun XI and by watermen pilots Watkins and Allen to steamship Beatsa in Gravesend Reach, River Thames-Beatsa lying at anchor near steamship Arcturus and coal hulk Mark Lane-Anchor dragged-Propeller firmly held by Arcturus's anchor cable-Risk of serious collision with Mark Lane-Beatsa towed by tugs to position of safety-Salvage services admitted-Dispute as to risk involved -Mark Lane permanently moored- Whether watermen pilots rendered any effective services-Risk of damage to cargo of potash-Whether cargo to be taken into account in making award.

THEATRICAL INVESTMENTS, LTD. v. FREW.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 95

Practice-Pleadings-Action brought on contingency insurance policy issued by defendant and providing for lump sum payment in event of actress being unable to commence appearance in theatrical production "through any cause whatsoever beyond the assured's control" - Production subsequently cancelled-Claim for total loss under policy-Points of claim setting out contract terms and alleging that actress was unable to commence appearance and that the delays were beyond the plaintiffs' control-Order made by Judge in Chambers, on defendant's application, that further and better particulars of the points of claim be given by plaintiffs-Appeal by plaintiffs on ground that order was misconceived and oppressive-Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 19, r. 7, 7 B.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BOARD v. W. A. MASSEY & SONS, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 98

Pilotage - Dues - Humber Conservancy Board Pilotage By-laws-Construction. (1) Vessels inward bound to Old Harbour, Hull-Humber pilot taken on board at seaward limit of pilotage district - No berth available on arrival-Anchored in Hull Roads until next high tide-Whether service from sea to anchorage and from anchorage to berth separate services. (2) Vessels outward bound from Hull via Hull and Barnsley Jetty to bunker - Humber pilot taken on board from inward limit-Vessel taken by pilot to seaward limit after bunkering-Whether service from Hull to jetty and from jetty to sea separate services. (3) Vessel outward bound from Hull via Salt End Jetty to load cargo-Humber pilot taken on board at inward limit-Vessel taken by pilot to seaward limit after cargo loaded-Whether Salt End Jetty "any other place at Hull"-Applicability of par. 5 or par. 9 of Schedule to By-laws.

Humber Conservancy Board Pilotage By-laws, Nos. 38, 59; Schedule, Part I, pars. 1, 5, 9, 10, 14-Decision of learned County Court Judge that vessel was required to pay for two separate pilotage stages in each case-Implication of charges not clearly provided for in Schedule-Appeal by shipowners.

THE "AMERICAN SHIPPER."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 105

Salvage-Services rendered by tugs Ben Eadar and Coliemore (belonging to Dublin Port & Docks Board) to American steamship American Shipper in St. George's Channel - Rudder broken-Request by owners to Port & Docks Board for assistance-Tugs sent out from Dublin-Vessel picked up about 20 miles E.N.E. of Codling Light-vessel-Strong south-west wind- Vessel drifting broadside on to Welsh coast-Request by master to be towed to Liverpool-Vessel only four or five miles off Welsh coast after towage for about 10 hours-American Shipper swung head to wind, engines then being put full ahead - Tow ropes parted - American Shipper subsequently anchored in Lambay Deep-Tugs' services, rendered at request, admitted to be salvage services- Contention that award should be moderate on ground that the tugs did not contribute to the ultimate safety of the American Shipper -Whether tugs' services in fact contributed-High value of salved property-Risk to tugs.

W. A. BONNELL (1924), LTD. v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER. (ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., THIRD PARTIES.)

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 112

Bill of lading-Short delivery (redwood deals and ends)-1260 pieces (540 of 3 by 9 and 720 of 2 by 9) received for shipment on plaintiffs' behalf - "Quality, condition, and measure unknown" - Vessel discharged at Surrey Commercial Docks - Short delivery of 720 pieces of 2 by 9-Claim by plaintiffs against shipowners and against Port of London Authority - Time-charterers of vessel joined by shipowners as third parties-Evidence of discharge-Probability that plaintiffs' cargo was mixed with other cargo during unloading-Estoppel-Liability of Port of London Authority under regulation providing that "The Port Authority will not accept any responsibility as to the number of pieces or description of the goods until they have been piled, counted, and landing return rendered."

MORLAND v. "AIRISTO" (OWNERS).

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 118

Stevedores-Discharge of timber-Charges -Claim by stevedores against shipowners for balance-Balance admitted to be due-Counterclaim by shipowners in respect of damage to cargo alleged to have been caused by negligence in discharging deck cargo overside into lighters-"(1) Vessel to supply power, steam, winches and runners, tackle, lights. (8) [Plaintiffs] will not be responsible for any . . . damage to deck cargo in cases in which the facilities in Condition 1 are not fully available"- Allegation by stevedores that derricks were impeded by cargo and that it was impracticable to have shifted the cargo to allow them free play-Cargo passed by hand into lighters-Duty of stevedores to take reasonable care.

IZZARD v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 121

Motor insurance-Third party-Passenger -Insurance of lorry with defendant company under "Commercial Motor Vehicle Policy"-"Is passenger risk to be covered? No"-"Warranted used only for general haulage and other trades"-"The company will indemnify the insured against liability at law for compensation and claimant's costs and expenses in respect of: Death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of any vehicle described in the schedule. Provided always that the company shall not be liable in respect of . . . (b) Death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment; (c) Death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from such vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises"-Contract between insured and I B Ltd. for haulage work and conveyance of workmen-I employed by I B Ltd, under contract of employment - Conveyance of I by insured lorry-Accident causing death

of I - Plaintiff, dependant of I, awarded judgment against insured- Bankruptcy of insured - Claim by plaintiff against defendant company under Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930-Whether I being carried "by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment" within the meaning of the proviso - Arbitration - Award in favour of plaintiff-Case stated-Construction of policy where express terms of policy are inconsistent with proposal form conditions-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35 (1), 36 (1) (b) (i), (ii).

THE "CASTOR."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 127

Collision between British steamship Trevose and Swedish motor vessel Castor in Las Palmas Bay-Both vessels bound to Las Palmas, the Trevose entering the harbour from the south and the Castor from the north-Vessels approaching starboard to starboard-Allegation by Trevose that Castor suddenly opened her red light when only two cables distant -Trevose's engines put half-speed ahead and her helm put hard-a-port- Dispute as to place of collision- Failure of Castor to signal her change of course-Duty of vessels under Art. 28 of the Collision Regulations-Lookout -Decision of Langton, J., that both vessels were to blame (Apportionment: Trevose, one-third; Castor, two-thirds) -Appeal by Castor-Order of C.A. (by a majority) varying apportionment of blame (Trevose, three-quarters; Castor, one-quarter) - Appeal and cross-appeal.

THE "SOUND FISHER."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 135

Bad berth-Damage to plaintiffs' steamship -Vessel grounded upon defendants' berth at Northfleet, River Thames-Allegation that berth was defective and that damage was sustained thereby-Evidence as to nature of berth-Possibility of damage from previous grounding in River Fergus- Onus of proof.

THE "LADY CAVAN."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 147

Collision between steamship Alder and steamship Lady Cavan in Lough Carlingford in fog-Alder at anchor; Lady Cavan proceeding up Lough- Alder, lying athwart course of Lady Cavan, exhibiting misleading lights (in addition to her anchor light she was still exhibiting her masthead and stern lights)-Lady Cavan's case that anchor light and masthead light of Alder first came into view about two points on port bow, leading to impression that lights belonged to a vessel heading towards her; that the loom of another light (in fact, the stern light of the Alder) suddenly came into view half a point on the port bow, and that immediately port helm action was taken by the Lady Cavan with the intention of passing between the lights, followed upon discovery of true position by hard-a-starboard helm and reversing of engines-Alder sunk with loss of six lives-Speed of Lady Cavan-Evidence of engine movements -Discrepancies in scrap log-Missing page - Look-out - Visibility-Whether Alder sounding her bell.

THE "ROBERTA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 159

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo carried in Dutch motor vessel-Unseaworthiness -Incursion of water into hold owing to negligence of engineer in leaving open cock controlling bilge suction-Vessel under time charter- Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners and against time-charterers- Liability of time-charterers under bill of lading-"This bill of lading shall be governed by and construed according to Dutch law"-Duty of shipowner under Dutch law to exercise due diligence to make vessel seaworthy- Whether shipowners failed in that duty by reason of (a) failure to provide a non-return valve; (b) the employment of an untrustworthy and incompetent engineer.

THE "SUD."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 179

Collision between dumb barge St. Neots and Yugo-Slav steamship Sud in Limehouse Reach, River Thames, just below Cuckold's Point-St. Neots driving up river to southward of mid-channel; Sud, in tow of tug, bound down, river-St. Neots sunk-Port of London River By-laws, 1922, Rule 6: "A lighter . . . when under way and not in tow shall by night have a white light in a lantern of a pattern approved by the Port Authority always ready and the person in charge thereof shall exhibit the same on the approach of any vessel"-Allegation by Sud that St. Neots was not exhibiting her light in accordance with Rule 6-Look-out.

DAVIES AND ANOTHER v. HOSKEN.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 183

Solicitors indemnity insurance-Fraud of unadmitted clerk-Claim under policy covering loss "arising from any claim or claims . . . by reason of any neglect, omission or error whenever or wherever the same was or may have been committed or alleged to have been committed on the part of the firm or their predecessors in business or any person now or heretofore employed by the firm or their predecessors in business or hereafter to be employed by the firm during the subsistence of this policy in or about the conduct of any business conducted by or on behalf of the firm or their predecessors in business in their professional capacity as solicitors" -Sums handed over to clerk by solicitors' clients to be secured by mortgage -No valid security in fact provided -Admitted fraud of clerk- Clients' claim against solicitors settled -Whether a loss arising from claims "by reason of any neglect, omission or error"-Authority of clerk.

CHARLES BROWN & CO., LTD., AND OTHERS v. NITRATE PRODUCERS' STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 188

Bill of lading-Unseaworthiness- Latent defect-Damage to plaintiffs' wheat cargo owing to leaky rivets-Claim against shipowners-Whether due diligence exercised by shipowners to make vessel in all respects seaworthy- Evidence of previous surveys and of vessel's condition-Weather not unusual on voyage-Meaning of "latent defect" -Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, Sects. 6, 7.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK BOARD v. TRADE INDEMNITY COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 193

Practice - Res judicata-Contract-Surety bond guaranteeing performance-Construction of works by K & R on plaintiffs' dock premises at Workington- Instructions to persons tendering that contractor must make his own independent inquiries as to the site and the water therein, and that the plaintiffs would not be bound by any representation that their engineers or their employees or the plaintiffs' employees might make to the contractors, unless in writing by the clerk to the plaintiffs -Tender by K & R-K & R notified that tender would be accepted if they provided guarantee-Surety bond for £50,000 entered into by defendants guaranteeing K & R's performance of contract-Failure of K & R to complete contract-Work completed by plaintiffs -Claim under bond - Evidence of agreements for loans made by plaintiffs to K & R during course of contract work-Indebtedness of K & R to plaintiffs denoted by final certificate issued by plaintiffs' engineers, certifying that £78,785 was due - Sum including balance due upon loans for principal and interest-Decision of H.L. that the loan agreements were outside the original contract and did not come

within the defendants' obligations under their bond, and that therefore the engineers' certificate, which included unknown sums due under the loan agreements, was not binding on the defendants-Further action brought by plaintiffs on bond-Plaintiffs' claim based on failure of K & R to carry out terms and obligations of the contract- Plea by defendants of res judicata- Order of Lewis, J. (reversing order of Master) that action should proceed- Appeal by defendants.

THE "NOWSHERA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 201

Collision between American steamship American Farmer and British steamship Nowshera in Gallions Reach, River Thames - American Farmer, inward bound to Royal Albert Dock, having turned under port helm, lying on the south side of the river, slightly angled to the northward of a down-river heading; Nowshera, outward bound from King George V Dock, having turned in river under starboard helm, proceeding down river on her proper side - Collision between starboard quarter of Nowshera and stem of American Farmer-Duty of Nowshera as overtaking vessel-Whether American Farmer canted suddenly to port shortly before collision.

PHILIPPSON AND OTHERS v. IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 207

Carriage by air-"International carriage" as defined by Convention of Warsaw of Oct. 12, 1929-General Conditions of Carriage of Goods (I.A.T.A.)-High Contracting Parties to Convention of Warsaw - Carriage of gold from London to Brussels - Stolen from Croydon Aerodrome-Claim by consignees -Consignment note based upon Convention (given force of law in England by Carriage by Air Act, 1932) -Preliminary questions for Court- Carriage by Air Act, 1932, Sect. 1 (2), Sched. 1.

ROSE v. FORD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 213

Damages-Personal injuries-Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934- Motor accident-Collision on Aug. 4, 1934, between motor cycle combination (in which R was passenger) and defendant's motor car-R seriously injured -Leg amputated on Aug. 6-Death of R on Aug. 8-Claim by administrator of deceased's estate for damages (a) under Fatal Accidents Acts as partial dependant of deceased; (b) under Act of 1934 for the benefit of R's estate (i) in respect of pain and suffering; (ii) in respect of the loss of a leg; (iii) in respect of the shortening of R's reasonable expectation of life (Flint v. Lovell, [1935] 1 K.B. 354)-Sect. 1: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, on the death of any person after the commencement of this Act all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of, his estate. . . . (2) Where a cause of action survives as aforesaid for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, the damages recoverable for the benefit of the estate of that person: . . . (c) where the death of that person has been caused by the act or omission which gives rise to the cause of action, shall be calculated without reference to any loss or gain to his estate consequent on his

death, except that a sum in respect of funeral expenses may be included"- Assessment of damages by Humphreys, J., under head (a): £300; under (b) (i) and (ii): £500-Damages refused under head (b) (iii) -Appeal by defendant against assessment of damages under heads (b) (i) and (ii)-Cross-appeal by plaintiff against refusal of learned Judge to award damages under head (b) (iii)-Decision of C.A. (Greer, Slesser and Greene, L.JJ.), allowing defendant's appeal, that as the deceased had lost her leg only two days before her death it was impossible in the circumstances to award more than nominal damages, and that therefore, as it was agreed between the parties that the damages attributable to pain and suffering should be £20, the damages awarded under heads (b) (i) and (ii) must be reduced to £22; further, by Slesser and Greene, L.JJ., Greer, L.J., dissenting, dismissing plaintiff's cross-appeal, that the principle laid down in Flint v. Lovell was limited to cases where the injured person was still alive at the date of the action-Appeal by plaintiff.

THE "ROBERTA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 231

Charter-party-Unseaworthiness - Indemnity -Damage to cargo carried in Dutch motor vessel-Incursion of water into hold owing to negligence of engineer in leaving open cock controlling bilge suction - Vessel under time charter-Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners and against charterers- Decision of Langton, J., that cargo-owners were entitled to recover against charterers-Claim by charterers to be indemnified by shipowners-Counterclaim by shipowners for hire unpaid while vessel under arrest by cargo-owners -Reasons for previous decision discussed-Cause of damage-Baltime Charter, 1920, Clauses 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12.

PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK v. PRICE.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 238

Insurance - Forged securities policy - Fraud of customer of bank-Advances made in good faith by bank upon fictitious invoices deposited by customer- Advances made and invoices (some fictitious) deposited daily over a period during currency of policy-Daily advances never more than 25,000 dols.- Bank's losses during currency of policy amounting to over 400,000 dols.-Claim by bank under policy-"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained this insurance is only to pay claims for the excess of 25,000 dols., ultimate net loss, by each and every loss or occurrence"-Whether the numerous fraudulent transactions were so inter-related as to amount to one ultimate net loss or whether each day's loss was a separate loss or occurrence.

THE "GOOD TEMPLAR."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 249

Collision between sailing barges Gamma and Good Templar in River Medway- Both vessels tacking down river- Gamma's case: that she was closehauled on the starboard tack and that the Good Templar failed in her duty to keep clear-Good Templar's case: that she was following in the wake of the Gamma, both vessels being closehauled on the port tack, when the Gamma suddenly went about on the starboard tack, making collision inevitable -Dispute as to position of Gamma when she went about-Look-out -Respective duties-Collision Regulations, Arts. 17 (b), 21.

THE "EURYMEDON."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 253

Collision between steamship Corstar and motor vessel Eurymedon in long Reach, River Thames-Corstar at anchor; Eurymedon bound up-Flood tide-Collision between port side of Eurymedon and port counter of Corstar, followed by collision between stem of Eurymedon and starboard side of steamer Corchester, lying alongside jetty on north side of river -Whether Corstar's anchor lights were burning properly - Dispute as to position of Corstar - Eurymedon's speed-Contributory negligence.

H.M.S. "MALAYA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 261

Collision between Dutch steamship Kertosono and H.M.S. Malaya, off the Portuguese coast, in fog-Kertosono bound north; Malaya bound south- Contact between stem of Kertosono and port side of Malaya-Evidence of engine movements and helm action taken by each vessel just before collision-Speeds-Look-out-Visibility -Dispute as to bearing of each vessel to the other upon sighting-Duty of vessels in fog-Collision Regulations, Art. 16: "Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain storms, go at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions. A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over"-Contention by Malaya that position of Kertosono was "ascertained," thereby justifying helm action.

MICELI v. UNION MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 280

Marine insurance-Perils of the sea -Damage by sea water to cargo of wet salted and dried codfish - Cargo shipped at Faroe Islands for Italian ports-Heavy weather experienced on voyage-Claim by cargo-owner-Onus of proof of damage by sea water- Evidence of condition of other cargo.

A/S. RENDAL v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 287

Charter-party-Notice of claim clause- Norwegian vessel chartered to Arcos, Ltd., of London (for Exportles, Moscow) for voyage from Leningrad to Sarpsborg-Failure by charterers to provide adequate icebreaker assistance in conformity with ice clause- Damage to vessel by ice-Claim by shipowners-Whether proper notice of claim given under Clause 24 providing: "Notice of any claim under this charter or under any bill of lading given hereunder must be given within 12 months of the date of the vessel's arrival at final port of discharge otherwise all claims shall be deemed to be waived"-Further question whether, if proper notice was given, such notice was given to anyone authorised to receive it-Construction of notice of claim clause-Notice of claim given by shipowners' agents to U.S.S.R. Trade Delegation in Norway-Constitution of U.S.S.R.-Trade Delegation admittedly agents of Exportles in respect of matters arising out of discharge of cargo under charter - Position of Trade Delegation considered - Extent of authority - Presumption, assuming that authority was limited, that such notice was passed on by agent to principal-No evidence in rebuttal-Measure of damages-Whether charterers liable

for whole of damage-No evidence that vessel would have suffered like damage had icebreaker assistance been given in accordance with charter-party.

THE "BUFFALO" AND OTHER BARGES.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 302

Salvage-Services rendered by plaintiff watermen to barges, laden with grain, adrift in River Thames on ebb tide- Barges boarded by plaintiffs and made fast - Barges damaged by striking buttresses of bridges-Risk of further serious damage if barges not secured -One barge holed, cargo being damaged-Hole plugged, preventing further damage-No other assistance immediately available-Personal risk to plaintiffs-Salvage services admitted -Alleged exaggerated claim.

ESSERY v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 307

Steamship passenger-Personal injuries- Plaintiff injured on board defendants' steamship while on a trip from Greenwich to Clacton-Allegation of negligence - Defendants' contention that they were protected by ticket conditions-Evidence that there was printed on face of ticket, in large type, "For conditions see back," and that on back of ticket, in small but legible type, there appeared the words: "[The defendants] will not be liable for any injury, damage, loss, delay or accident to passengers, however the same is caused, whether by negligence by their servants, or otherwise"- Whether defendants had taken proper steps to bring conditions to the plaintiff's notice-Reasonableness of conditions.

FIRTH SHIPPING COMPANY v. MORTON'S TRUSTEES.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 309

Negligence-Bad berth-"Free port" (Scotland)-Pursuers' vessel berthed alongside jetty in Aberdour Harbour (belonging to defenders)-Allegation that vessel sustained damage on taking ground-Berth not level-Evidence of other groundings between berthing at Aberdour and subsequent drydocking at Aberdeen for survey-Whether pursuers had discharged onus of showing that damage disclosed was sustained at Aberdour-Legal duty owed by holder of grant of "free port"- Whether there was an implied invitation to shipowners-Duty to maintain berth in safe condition-Evidence as receipts and expenditure.

THE "KAFIRISTAN."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 317

Salvage-Agreement-Services rendered by steamship Beaverford to steamship Kafiristan in Gulf of St. Lawrence- Kafiristan badly damaged by collision with steamship Empress of Britain- Liability for collision settled on basis of Empress of Britain three-quarters to blame and Kafiristan One-quarter- Empress of Britain in same ownership as Beaverford-Services rendered under Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement (No cure-no pay) -Arbitration-Case stated-Wether the fact that the Empress of Britain was partly to blame for the collision disentitled her owners, as owners of the Beaverford, to an award for the services rendered to the Kafiristan- Award of £600 to master and crew of Beaverford.

THE "CRANFORD."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 331

Collision between lighter Thames V (in tow of tug Security) and steamship Cranford in the Middelgat, River Scheldt-Tug and tow bound down; Cranford bound up-Ebb tide-Contact between stem of Cranford and port side amidships of lighter-Lighter sunk-Allegation by Cranford that lights of tug and tow were inefficient- Whether, as the Cranford said, the vessels were approaching safely green to green and the Security starboarded across her course, or, whether, as the Security said, the vessels were approaching red (of the Cranford) to green (of the Security)-Credibility- Look-out.

THE "UMTALI."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 337

Collision between steamship Corrientes and steamship Umtali in St. Clement's Reach, River Thames, a little below Stone Ness Point, in daylight- Corrientes bound up; Umtali bound down-Contact between stem of Umtali and port side of Corrientes-Allegation by Corrientes that the vessels being in a position to pass port to port, the Umtali negligently ported into her- Allegation by Umtali that the Corrientes, proceeding up on the southerly side of mid-channel and having accepted the Umtali's invitation to pass starboard to starboard, suddenly altered course to starboard- Dispute as to position of Corrientes; as to whistle signals given and heard by each vessel; as to place of collision; as to heading of vessels at collision; and as to speed of Umtali- Duty of vessels under by-laws-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 33-Port of London River (Amendment) By-laws, 1934, Rule 4 (a).

IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION v. SAMUEL WEST, LTD. SAMUEL WEST, LTD. v. IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION AND OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP "OXBIRD" (BY COUNTERCLAIM).

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 346

Wreck-Public authority-Sinking of defendant's barge by collision in River Orwell-Statutory powers of plaintiff Dock Commission under Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, Sect. 56-Wreck lighted by plaintiffs -Agreement between plaintiffs and defendants that plaintiffs would raise the wreck and restore her to defendants at their expense-Wreck raised by plaintiffs and shifted to position nearer bank-Light removed-Wreck run into by steamship Oxbird, further damage being sustained-Wreck again raised by plaintiffs-Claim by plaintiffs to total cost incurred in raising wreck-Tender by defendants of cost of first raising accepted by plaintiffs-Right of plaintiffs to balance-Counterclaim by defendants against plaintiffs and against owners of the Oxbird in respect of further damage to wreck; and against owners of the Oxbird to be indemnified in respect of defendants' liability to plaintiffs, if any, in respect of second raising-Whether plaintiffs protected by Sect. 1 of Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

NORMAN v. MATTHEWS, WRIGHTSON (SHIPPING), LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 351

Shipbrokers - Sale of ship - Breach of warranty of authority-Negotiations between agents for plaintiff purchaser and defendants (as agents for seller)- Terms communicated to plaintiff's agents by defendants as a "firm offer" on which seller would be willing to close-Acceptance of offer by plaintiff's agents-Subsequent refusal by seller to complete unless "class maintenance" and "free of average damage" clauses agreed to by him were omitted-Authority of shipbroker in negotiating sale-Whether defendants offered terms not authorised by seller-Enforceability of contract- Necessity for memorandum of agreement.

TAYLOR & CO., LTD. v. GOLDEN CROSS LINE (BRISTOL CHANNEL), LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 357

Charter-party - Breach - Charter by plaintiffs of defendants' steamship to load esparto grass at Oran (Algeria) and Carboneras (Spain) - Outbreak of civil war in Spain-Possible risk to vessel on voyage to Carboneras -Agreement between parties that plaintiffs should load full cargo in defendants' steamship at Oran and that defendants should later, if conditions permitted, load plaintiffs' cargo at Carboneras - Failure of defendants to load plaintiffs' cargo at Carboneras-Whether conditions in Spain precluded performance of contract by defendants - Defendants' contention that charter-party had been fulfilled.

ANTONAKIS v. FAIRFIELD SHIPBUILDING & ENGINEERING COMPANY, LTD.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 365

Practice-Statement of claim-Further and better particulars-Claim by plaintiff agent to recover expenses incurred on defendants' behalf- Breach of contract-Numerous items -Appeal by plaintiff from order of learned Judge requiring particulars of each item, under penalty, if unable to comply with order as regards any one item, of action being struck out-Right of defendants to particulars of allegation in statement of claim irrelevant to cause of action.

THE "FRIGGA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 368

Collision between British steamship Umtata and Danish steamship Frigga, in Barking Reach, River Thames, in fog-Umtata bound up; Frigga bound down-Contact between stem of Umtata and port side of Frigga-Dispute as to place of collision with reference to mid-channel - Visibility - Look-out- Speeds.

THE "ROBERTA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 374

Admiralty practice-Bail-Writ in rem issued by plaintiff cargo-owners against shipowners (first defendants) for cargo damage-Arrest of ship- Ship released on provision of bail- Time charterers added as second defendants-Judgment for plaintiffs against second defendants-Subsequent claim by second defendants to be indemnified by first defendants-Claim upheld-Application by second defendants that bail provided by first defendants should be available to meet second defendants' claim for indemnity -Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sects. 22, 33.

THE "HERANGER."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 377

Collision between British steamship Diamond and Norwegian motor vessel Heranger, in Long Reach, River Thames - Diamond bound up; Heranger bound down-Contact between stem of Heranger and starboard side of Diamond-Diamond sunk, with loss of master and seaman-Diamond, on voyage between wharves just over a mile apart on the south shore, proceeding up on south side-Whether a special circumstance under Rule 33 of the Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934-Duty under by-law-Whether Heranger entitled to expect that Diamond would comply with by-law- Duty of Heranger-Whether she should have reduced her speed sooner-Dispute as to whistle signals sounded by the Diamond; and as to the position of the vessels when the signals were sounded and when the Heranger first took action to reduce her speed.

THE "DEVONIA."

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 384

Bad berth-Damage to plaintiffs' vessel- Plaintiffs' allegation that damage was sustained in taking ground at berth belonging to defendants (Corporation of Bideford)-Dispute as to whether berth fell away at aft end of vessel; as to whether surface of berth was soft or slurry at aft end of the vessel; and as to whether, assuming berth was of such a character, it could have caused the damage claimed-Evidence of surveys -Inference to be drawn from nature of damage. Practice-Damage at berth-Particulars of damage-Claim by plaintiff shipowners against defendant berth-owners (public authority) -Allegation that berth fell away at aft end of vessel-Particulars supplied by plaintiffs at defendants' request, as to what extent berth fell away; where, in relation to vessel, it commenced to fall away; and as to length of vessel alleged to have been unsupported - Plaintiffs' further plea during trial that vessel was unsupported aft by reason of softer consistency of mud at that end- Whether adding new cause of action -Right of defendants to plead Public Authorities Protection Act.

GROOM v. CROCKER AND OTHERS.

(1937) 58 Ll.L.Rep. 396

Libel-Assured-Motor insurance-Running-down action-Duty of solicitors and insurance company - Plaintiff insured with defendant insurance company -Collision between plaintiff's car and lorry belonging to T- Plaintiff and passenger (plaintiff's brother) injured-Lorry driver convicted of dangerous driving-Claim by plaintiff against T settled-Writ issued by passenger against plaintiff and T as joint defendants- -Writ handed to defendant company -Papers passed on by company to defendant solicitors-Arrangement between defendant insurance company and T's insurers that each should pay half damages awarded- Delivery of defence by defendant solicitors, acting on plaintiff's behalf, wherein plaintiff was made to admit that the collision occurred solely by reason of his negligence, with a covering letter saying that their client (the plaintiff) "admits that he was negligent on the occasion referred to in the statement of claim" - Defence put in by T denying negligence-Protest by plaintiff to defendant company upon learning of admission of negligence in defence-Letter written by defendant company to sub-agent: "You state that [the plaintiff] is very cross that, without his consent, negligence should be admitted when, in fact, no one seriously suggests that he was negligent. That may be the view of our insured, but nevertheless if we had repudiated liability we ran a very serious risk of the Court holding a different view and giving a decision against us" - Trial of action-Damages and costs awarded against plaintiff (in fact paid by defendant company)-Claim brought by plaintiff against defendant solicitors and defendant company for breach of contract, negligence and libel-Duty of solicitors and insurance company in such circumstances-Whether letters

were defamatory-Plea by solicitors that letter was written on privileged occasion-Proof of malice-Measure of damages - Questions to jury, with answers:

(1) Were the defendants, Messrs. Crocker, guilty of negligence or breach of duty?-Yes. (2) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (3) Libel as to Messrs. Crocker: Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning?-Yes. (4) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?-Yes. (5) Were the defendants guilty of malice in sending the said letter?- Yes, indirect motive. (6) Was the letter of Mar. 26 written with the leave and licence of the plaintiff?-No. (7) Damages for libel against Messrs. Crocker?-£1000. (8) As to the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.: Were these defendants guilty of negligence or breach of duty?- Yes. (9) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (10) As to the libel: Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning? -Yes. (11) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?- Yes. (12) Damages for libel against the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.?-£1000.

Lloyd's Law Reports