1857. April 8. Sylph's case manifestly untrue from mode of collision. and kept it to port, (whatever was done by the galliot by starboarding her helm or otherwise,) the galliot could have been struck amidships on her port side? That is the question you must consider upon the whole of the evidence. There is only one other point which it is necessary to put to you, that is, whether the galliot carried a light, which light was not seen by the steamer. Now we shall have to determine by whose fault the collision took place, whether it was the fault of the steamer in starboarding her helm, or not porting in time; or whether it was the fault of the galliot in having starboarded her helm in the first instance, and then ported it afterwards. DR. LUSHINGTON, after consultation with the Elder Brethren, said:-We are all of opinion that the case set up by the steamer is manifestly untrue; because, if she, the steamer, put her helm to port, when distant from the galliot half-a-mile, according to her own statement, it was impossible that the collision could have taken place by the stem of the steamer striking the Ardina on her port midships, though the Ardina did starboard and afterwards port her helm. That the Ardina, seeing the green boarding when light on her starboard bow, was justified in starboarding her helm, and afterwards in porting her helm when the red light and afterwards was seen. That the collision on the port side amidships could porting when only have taken place by the Sylph starboarding her helm, or porting it too late, or not porting at all (a). Ardina jus tified in star she saw the green light, she saw the red. Rothery, proctor for the Ardina. F. Clarkson for the Sylph. (a) From this decree an appeal was prosecuted to her Majesty in Council, and on the 30th of June following their Lordships affirmed the sentence of the Court below with costs, and remitted the cause. The Lords present were the Lords Justices Knight Bruce and Turner, and Sir Edward Ryan. 1857. April 7. THE ACTIF, T. K. THIESBE, Master. Salvage-Salvor's Costs-17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460. A salvage service commenced fifteen miles off the coast of the United Kingdom terminated in the Humber; action entered in 500l., 100l. awarded. On the question of costs; held, that the limitation as to costs in 460th sect. of Merchant Shipping Act extends only to cases where the service is performed within the limits of the United Kingdom, i. e. within three miles of the coast; beyond that distance the Court will exercise its own discretion as to giving costs with reference to the sum awarded. THIS HIS was an action brought by the smack Britain against the Norwegian barque Actif, to obtain compensation for salvage services rendered to her in the North Sea on the 28th of September, 1856. On the 27th of February the Court awarded 1007.; but a question then arose whether, under these circumstances, the salvors, under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, were entitled to their costs. Bayford now contended, on behalf of the owners, that it was the intention of the Act of Parliament that in cases where the claims for salvage do not exceed 2007., they should be decided by local magistrates, and not by this Court, provided the services were rendered within three miles of the shore. In the present instance the services commenced beyond that distance, but were not completed until the barque was brought into port. He submitted that the salvage awarded being only 100l., the salvors were not entitled to their costs. Jenner, on the part of the salvors, relied upon the authority of the case of the Leda, and argued that the services having originated upwards of three miles from the shore, they had a right to costs. The Court reserved its decision. May 4. DR. LUSHINGTON :-This foreign ship was found about fifteen Judgment. miles distant from the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk, and by the assistance of the salvors reached the Humber in safety. The Court was of opinion that 100l. was an adequate reward, the The question action having been entered at 5007. The question is, whether, is as to costs, under these circumstances, the Court ought to allow the salvors sect. of Mertheir costs. The determination of this question must be governed chant Shipping under 460th Act. 1857. May 4. No circum stances to induce the Court to certify. Case of the In this case risdiction. by the Merchant Shipping Act. Prior to the passing of any statute on the subject, the costs would have been allowed as a matter of course, there not having been a tender. No doubt is raised as to the power of the Court to certify that the circumstances, though only 1007. has been decreed, justified the bringing the case before this Court, and for that reason to give costs; but I was and am of opinion that there were no facts of any peculiar kind which would authorize me to adopt this course. The sole question, therefore, is, the construction of the 460th section of the Merchant Shipping Act in connection with one of the other sections. In the case of the Leda (a), I expressed my opinion that, where the service was performed within three miles of the coast-which was the best exposition I could give to the expression of the statute "in the United Kingdom”—and the sum claimed for that salvage did not exceed 2007., the case must be referred to the arbitration of two magistrates. In the present to exercise ju- case the service was performed out of the United Kingdom, and the sum claimed is 500l. That the Court is entitled to exercise jurisdiction thereon cannot be doubted, but as the Court has found that 1007. only will be a fit compensation, then I have to consider whether the jurisdiction of the Court is left wholly unfettered as to costs, as it was independent of any statute, or whether the Act has imposed any and what restrictions. The admitted restriction as regards jurisdiction is, service within the United Kingdom, and claim under 2001. Now, supposing the service to be rendered within the United Kingdom, and the claim to exceed 2007., then, according to the statute, such claim may, by the consent of the parties, be referred to the arbitration of the justices. If they do not consent it must be tried in the Admiralty Court, with this proviso, that if 2007. only be given, there shall not be costs unless the Court certifies. I apprehend that the reason of this enactment as to costs is clear. The object was to enforce the former part of this section. The legislature expressed its opinion that suits for salvage within the United Kingdom for sums not exceeding 2001. ought to be determined by the justices. To prevent the evasion of this enactment by the salvors claiming above 2007., and so bringing the suit in the Admiralty Court, the Act provides that no costs shall be given except under the circumstances therein stated. The claimant is by the conclusion of this section enabled to apply to the justices, even though the other party may not join. These are the words :"And every dispute with respect to salvage may be heard and adjudicated upon on the application either of the salvor or of the owner of the property salved, or of their respective agents." (a) Page 40, supra. 1857. May 4. The words "in Kingdom" run through and govern all the United these sections of the Act. Whatever may be the effect of this part of the statute-whether the justices are compellable to hear, or the other party to attend, or whether the justices could proceed in the absence of partieshowever that may be, I cannot entertain any doubt of the intention of the legislature, however expressed, to give the salvors, in every case of salvage, and especially in one so circumstanced, a remedy. Then, is this restriction as to costs intended to be confined to salvage performed within the United Kingdom, where the sum given does not exceed 2001.? or does it extend to all salvage cases wheresoever the service was performed, when the sum allotted does not exceed 2007.? Without travelling over the same ground as I trod in the case of the Leda, I will observe, that I think the words "in the United Kingdom" to be found at the head of these sections run through and govern the whole of them. I am of opinion that this restriction as to costs has no reference to any salvage not performed in the United Kingdom. Let me consider what would be the consequence of putting a different construction upon the words employed. Suppose I was to put this construction, that the words "in the United Kingdom" were intended to describe the locality of the dispute only, and not the locality of the service performed, I cannot do so without, as it appears to me, disregarding the provisions of the 458th section, which says, "Whenever any ship or boat is stranded or otherwise in distress on the shore of any sea or tidal water situate within the limits of the United Kingdom," &c. I think that the dispute contemplated by the Act is a dispute as to salvage rendered in the United Kingdom. Upon con- And where the sideration, therefore, of the 458th, 460th and 498th sections, I service is peram of opinion that, in a case such as this, the Admiralty Court the United Kingdom, the is not prohibited from giving costs according to its ordinary Court is left to practice. This Court always has been and is most desirous of its own discrediscouraging salvage suits for small amounts, and will follow that principle so far as the law will allow. I think it right to say, and I am bound to state, that there are very great difficulties in putting a construction on this part of the Act. It is exceedingly Obscurity of difficult to understand whether the legislature referred to the com- Statute. mencement or the completion of a salvage service. It is still more difficult to say to what cases the authority of the magistrates may extend. I do not think it necessary on the present occasion further to advert to these difficulties, though I am fully sensible of them. I shall reserve my opinion till the case arises, and in this case I shall give the costs. Jenner, proctor for the salvors. Coote for the Actif. formed without tion as to costs. this part of the 1857. May 4. Judgment. THE CHANGE, T. J. ROCHFORD, Master. Bottomry Bond-Rate of Interest inadvertently omitted. In a bottomry bond taken at Calcutta, blanks had been left where the rate of interest ought to have been expressed, the Court pronounced for the bond, with such interest as the Registrar should find to have been usual on such risks at the time and place the bond was taken. THIS HIS was a case of a bottomry bond given at Calcutta on the vessel the Change. When the ship arrived in this country it appeared that there were blanks in the instrument in those places where the rate of maritime interest ought to have been expressed. A notarial certificate or affidavit was given in from the notary who drew the instrument at Calcutta, stating that the blanks were omissions arising from carelessness on his part, and that 30 per cent. was the rate agreed upon. The Court was moved to order that rate of interest to be inserted in the bond. DR. LUSHINGTON refused to make such an order, as it would be dangerous, however clear the intention might be in the present case, to add to a written instrument; but he pronounced for the bond with such rate of interest as money on such risk would command at that time at Calcutta, and referred that question to the Registrar and Merchants. F. Clarkson, proctor for bondholder. May 13. THE FIREFLY, GEORGE COWLE, Master. Ship-Salvage-Vivâ Voce Agreement upheld. Where an agreement for salvage services is clearly established, the Court will uphold it, unless wholly inequitable, and will not set it aside on the ground that it is a hard bargain. THIS HIS was a cause of salvage promoted by the steam-tugs Pilot and Gipsey King, against the screw steam-collier Firefly. The latter vessel got upon the rocks just outside Sunderland Harbour, on a night in December last. Two pilots came off in a small boat in answer to her lights and ringing a |