Point, several vessels passed her on the port side; that shortly after they observed the Hélène coming up in tow of the steamtug Kent, both vessels hugging the south shore. That they hailed the Hélène and her tug to port their helms, and that the helms of the La Plata and William Gunston were immediately put hard a-port; that after they had been hailed three or four times, the Kent ported her helm, and that in a few seconds afterwards the Hélène ported hers, and that the brig's midships soon afterwards came into collision with the La Plata's stem. The La Plata attributed the collision to the Hélène and her tug having been to the south instead of the north of mid-channel, and to their not having ported their helms in time. The Court was assisted by Captains Farrer and Close. Addams and Twiss for the brig. Robinson and Jenner for the La Plata. 1857. April 3. DR. LUSHINGTON, addressing the Elder Brethren, said: Judgment. Gentlemen, it is our duty to endeavour to ascertain what is the true state of the facts in this case; and then to consider what are the legal results, as they affect either party. I wish in the first instance to call your attention to the manner in which the collision is admitted to have taken place, and then to some of the results, as matters of fact, that appear to me to arise therefrom. It is pleaded on behalf of the Hélène that the "La Plata Mode of ran stem on into the Hélène, and struck that vessel just before collision. the main rigging on her port side." The statement on the other side, though varying in the mode of expression, is exactly the same in effect, "the Hélène's midships, just before the main rigging, came in contact with the stem of the La Plata." Now Head of the it appears to me that in order for the collision to have taken northward and place in this way, that the head of the Hélène must have been westward. somewhat to the northward, (I do not pretend to say how much to the northward, because the witnesses vary, some say to the west-north-west, and others much more to the north), and that the head of the La Plata was either direct east or to the north of east. If this was so previous to the collision, the Hélène had at least in some degree obeyed her port helm, and it also appears to me that the La Plata's head, whatever might have been done Head of the to the helm, however much it might have been ported, could not La Plata to the have been brought round. I observe it to be alleged, though I eastward. do not know to what time that averment particularly refers, that the course of the La Plata was north by east to north-east, that Hélène to the northward and 1857. April 3. Act of Parlia ment starboard side of midchannel. Some allow ance must be made for towed. Case of the is so stated in the preliminary act; but I rather think, to reconcile the statement at all, the course must have been north by east at some period antecedent to the collision. The next question will be what were the proper courses of these vessels, and I must now direct your attention to the Act of Parliament which has been already cited by one of the learned counsel in the case. By that Act of Parliament it is stated that "every steam-ship, when navigating any narrow channel, shall, whenever it is safe. and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such steam-ship." The consequence would be, that it would be the duty of the Hélène to keep to the north of mid-channel, and of the La Plata to the south. But, gentlemen, this rule must be modified with respect to both vessels, because I am clearly of opinion, however vessels being strictly you may apply the rule to two steamers navigating alone, the one going down on the south side, and the other coming up on the north, yet in the case of a vessel in tow of another, some allowance must be made, and some deductions taken from that extreme strictness which applies to a vessel steaming by itself. Some allowance must also be made for the state of the tide, the peculiarity of the locality, and especially if there was any wind. Now I will first direct your attention to the case of the Hélène, because, unless her hands are free from blame, she cannot recover in the present action. She would be to blame if the collision was occasioned either by her being too far to the southward of mid-channel in disregard of the statute, or if she neglected to port her helm in time. She would not be to blame simply if she was a little to the southward of mid-channel, if the peculiarity of the locality and the state of the tide accounted for it, because the provision of the act is, "whenever it is safe and practicable" so to do. That must be construed with reasonable latitude. With regard to the porting of the helm, which is said to have been done too late, that is a question on which the evidence is very conflicting. It is clear her head was turned in time, but whether she was as far to the northward as she ought to have been is a question on which I wish your advice, upon a consideration of the whole case. If the collision has been occasioned by the failure of the Hélène in either of these particulars, she cannot recover, whatever may be the fault of the La Plata; but to work this effect there must be not only a failure in these respects, but no circumstances to make a departure from the rule necessary. A subsequent section, which you have heard so often, subCase of the La stantially enacts what I have stated. With reference to the La Plata, she is a screw-steamer of 428 tons, and 150 feet long, and was proceeding in tow of a steam-tug from Deptford to the Plata. Victoria Docks below Blackwall. It is clear also that she 1857. April 3. impose unusual vessels will be ensues. started before high water, and whilst the flood was making. Whether that was right or wrong I must leave entirely to you; but I must observe that I know of no law which prohibits its being done, and probably the exigency of navigation would not admit of any positive rule. I think it is also clear that if the so A vessel navibeing towed by a steamer against the tide is productive of risk gating so as to or danger to other vessels more than usual and ordinary, and if risk on other damage arises therefrom in consequence of this risk or danger, responsible if the owners must be responsible for that damage. The next con- an accident sideration is as to the state of the tide and the consequences arising therefrom in that locality. I think that the evidence, though conflicting, leads to the conclusion that though high water may have passed, the flood tide may still have had some effect. I do not venture, of course, to form an opinion as to the extent of that effect. Then the question as to the La Plata is, whether the collision arose from any fault or default on her part, and in these particulars, viz., did the La Plata, on seeing the Hélène, port her helm, and did she answer her port helm? I quite agree with Dr. Addams, that when it is pleaded that the ship ported her helm, it is not sufficient that the helm was put to port, but the ship must answer it also. Then the question will be, not merely whether she ported in due time, but whether she answered her helm in time, and if she did not answer her helm, what was the cause? The evidence in my judgment clearly goes to show that the helm of the La Plata was ported in due time, for she had ported to pass the Rose, and kept the helm to port. I think the head of the La Plata was not altered to southward of east, but, according to the evidence, her head was either to the east or the north of east. I think this is proved, first from the mode of collision, and, secondly, it is proved by all the evidence in the case that her head was not moved. Whether or not her head was moved in any degree sideways to the southward I cannot tell. If the La Plata did not answer her helm, and the consequence of her not so doing contributed to the collision, what was the cause? Was it from the length of the La Plata, was it from the length of the tow rope, was it from her having gone too near to the south shore, regarding the Act of Parliament, but following it up too closely, or was it that the eddy of the tide affected her? If it was either of these causes I hold her to blame; for if she was so navigated as to expose other ships to unusual danger, she must be responsible for their not getting out of the way, which, under other circumstances, they might have done. Evidence shows that the La Plata ported her helm, did she answer it? 1857. April 3. The Court and the Elder Brethren having retired for consultation, on their return DR. LUSHINGTON said:-The gentlemen by whom I have been assisted are of opinion that the La Plata was to blame for this collision. F. Clarkson, proctor for the Hélène. Toller for the La Plata. April 7. Judgment. THE MARY PLEASANTS, D. LYONS, Master. Salvage-Ship - Cargo. H. M. steam-ship Leopard rendered a salvage service to an English vessel then in the service of the French government and laden with a valuable cargo. The suit was entered against the vessel alone, her value being 4,2471. The Court, adverting to the difficulty of apportioning salvage where the cargo was not before it, awarded 6001. on the value of the vessel. THIS HIS was a suit promoted by her Majesty's steam-ship Leopard against the Mary Pleasants, to procure salvage remuneration for services rendered to her on the 10th of November, 1855, and following days, about seven miles to the westward of Eupatoria. The Mary Pleasants was employed in the transport service of the French government, and had on board French troops, provisions, stores, &c. She was driven on shore by stress of weather. These services consisted in lightening the vessel and occasionally attempting to tow her off. The value of the ship, which alone was proceeded against, was 4,2471. On the part of the owners it was contended that the vessel was not towed off by the Leopard, but floated off, and that a small remuneration would be sufficient reward. The Queen's Advocate and Spinks were heard for the Leopard. Bayford and Twiss for the Mary Pleasants. DR. LUSHINGTON:-I am of opinion that nothing passed between Captain Giffard and the master of this vessel which can estop the claim of Captain Giffard for salvage, as a reward for services which were performed to this ship; moreover, he is 1857. April 7. to the pre valuable cargo. authorized, as required by the Act of Parliament (a), by the Admiralty to make the claim. I must consider what his personal services were worth-when I say personal services I use that expression in order to distinguish it from other cases, inasmuch as it has been observed by Dr. Twiss, that no claim could be made on account of the assistance given by the vessel herself for any risk or damage which she had incurred (b). The services The assistance lasted during seven days, and the vessel undoubtedly was in was necessary a state of very considerable difficulty, because, whether she servation of a could ultimately have been saved without the assistance of a steamer is not the question, but the true question is, whether she did not require this assistance first to save the cargo and then the vessel herself. It might have been that by simply throwing overboard the cargo the vessel might have come off, and probably would in that way; but that does not detract from the merit of those who rendered the assistance in the present case. But the real difficulty is, that there is no proceeding against the cargo. The vessel is English, and was in the service of the French government. She was laden with a cargo consisting of articles which, from the statement of the master, must have been of very considerable value. The difficulty, I say, arises from Difficulty the this circumstance, because when the Court considers the services when the cargo rendered to the ship and cargo, it always estimates the amount is not before it. of salvage remuneration according to the value of the ship and cargo taken together. It is contrary to all principles of justice, if a cargo has received and been benefited by the services so rendered, that the whole burden of the salvage remuneration should fall on the ship itself. I know not, in this case, the value of the cargo, and consequently the Court is put in a situation of some difficulty in forming an estimate of the compensation which should be given. Looking at all the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion-not attempting to place any definite value upon the cargo-that I should not be justified in imposing on the ship a greater burden than 6007., with costs. Burchett, proctor for the salvors. Tebbs for the Mary Pleasants. (a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 485. Court feels |