1856. Jan. 28. cumstances of the case are such as to render a departure from the rule necessary, in order to avoid immediate danger, and subject also to the proviso that due regard shall be had to the dangers of navigation, and, as regards sailing ships on the starboard tack, close-hauled, to the keeping such ships under command." Before the passing of this statute it was a sort of hauled on star- established doctrine, that a vessel being close-hauled on the board tack be- starboard tack was to keep her course, and never to put her Rule as to vessel close fore the statute, helm to port at all. Now, the statute says, that you shall port under the statute. Do the facts bring the case under the rule of the statute? Evidence of master of the Soubahdar. Evidence of officer in charge of the Inflexible. your helm-you shall not be excused on account of being on the starboard tack; but it does not say that you shall throw yourself into stays-that you are to lose command of your vessel. Now, the question is as to the applicability of the statute to the facts and circumstances of the case. As to the facts, of course we must take them from the evidence. You will observe it is an undenied fact here, in the very statement made on behalf of the Soubahdar, that she kept close to the wind until a collision was inevitable, and then she ported her helm. Now let us see how they saw each other. And I will take the evidence of Captain Umphreville, master of the Soubahdar. After having given the state of the wind and the weather, he says he saw the masthead light; he then saw the red light, and in about a minute he ordered the helm to be put hard aport to ease the blow, otherwise she would have been struck amidships. He says the steamer had altered her course-her helm must have been shifted and put to port. This he saw a minute or a minute and a half before the collision. He gave orders to port when he saw that she had altered her helm ;-the Soubahdar answered her port helm; the sails were lifting. Now, I understand from this evidence. that the Inflexible was seen about a mile off, and a point or two on the starboard bow of the Soubahdar, coming down channel. If you think, being seen at the distance of a mile, that it was the duty of those on board the Soubahdar immediately to have ported their helm without more ado, and if you think I will not say according to the terms of the Act of Parliament, because I do not mean to place upon you the onus of construing it—but if you think that, the Soubahdar being close-hauled, there was at that time danger involving a risk of collision, and therefore it was incumbent on the Soubahdar to port, undoubtedly she did not port then, for she ported later. Having stated this question, I will come to the conduct of the Inflexible, and I will give the statement of Mr. Bindon, who was the officer in command at the time. He was on the watch on the foremost bridge. The weather, he says, was hazy, inclined. to fog, with drizzling rain. Then he says the wind was S.W. by W. to S.W. by S., a lighter breeze than they can carry whole sail with, a moderate breeze; the course was W. by S. Then he says he saw the lights of the Soubahdar two or three minutes before ten; he saw her on the port bow, fully two points; the light remained bright at first, it dwindled, and went out. He saw another light afterwards three or four minutes after ten; that would make it seven or eight minutes. The second time it was very bright before the port paddle-box. He says he ordered the helm to be put hard aport. The steamer was going five knots. From "hard aport" to the collision occupied about three minutes and a half to four minutes. He then stopped the engines. The question for you to determine is this, whether or not the Inflexible, being a steamer, and seeing the vessel in the way he describes-seeing her so long before the collision, and having ample time to port the helm,-was not guilty of culpable delay in porting it-remembering that a steamer is much more easy to handle than a sailing vessel. I do not rely on the hasty words extracted from him, that steamers were not to port their helm to every vessel they saw. The learned Judge and the Elder Brethren having retired for consultation; on their return, 1856. Jan. 28. DR. LUSHINGTON said:-Now, I will first read the questions which Dr. Phillimore suggested. Assuming that the Soubahdar Questions put to, and answers saw the steamer one point on her starboard bow, must she not of, the Trinity have seen the green light, and not the red, a mile distant?—No. Masters. Secondly, if she saw the red light, as she says she did, must she not have starboarded?-No. The next question was, whether the evidence given by Mr. Brown as to the damage done to the vessels did not prove that the Soubahdar starboarded her helm? -No. Then the questions which I put myself were these:Whether the Trinity Masters were of opinion that the helm of the Soubahdar was starboarded ?-They are of opinion that it was not. Whether they are of opinion that she ported too late? -They are of opinion that she did not port too late. The last question I put was as to the Inflexible, whether she did not neglect to port in time?-Yes. I pronounce, therefore, against the Inflexible, and give the costs. F. Clarkson, proctor for the Soubahdar. The Proctor for the Admiralty for the Inflexible. 1856. Jan. 29. THE ERICSSON, LOWBER, Master. Collision-Insufficient look-out on Steamer going at rapid Rate A vessel on port tack, with wind free, at night, saw the green light of a steamer, IN N this case the barque Alderman Thompson proceeded against the Ericsson, an American paddle steamship, running between Bremen and New York, and calling on her way at Southampton, for damage arising from a collision which took place off Dover, about midnight, on 15th October, 1855. The barque was proceeding in ballast from Portsmouth to Sunderland, the steamer was proceeding from Bremen. On behalf of the barque it was stated to be a clear night, though not moonlight, but stars bright; that she was under easy sail on the port tack, heading E.N.E., wind NW. by N., going at the rate of about two and a half knots an hour; the South Foreland about three miles broad on larboard bow; the watch on the barque saw the bright and green lights of the steamer broad on their starboard bow not less than four miles off: they showed a light in a lanthorn over their starboard bow, and did not alter their course till the steamer, which took no notice of them, was close upon them, when they put their helm to starboard to ease the collision which was then inevitable; the steamer caught the barque's starboard quarter, carried away her mizen-mast and the whole of the stern frame with the wheel and the seaman at it, who was drowned. On behalf of the steamer it was stated that, though there was a good look-out on deck, they did not see the light of the barque till she was close under their port bow; that orders were then given to port the helm and to slow, stop and reverse the engines; that the engines were working astern, but they could not say that the steamer's way was stopped at the time of collision; she denied that the barque showed a light till she was close under the steamer's bow, and said that if the barque had ported her helm, even at the last, the collision might have been avoided. She admitted that the night was clear, but dark. The Court was assisted by Captains Farquharson and Were. 1856. Jan. 29. look out on board the Barque justi. fied in not porting while she saw the green light broad on her starboard bow. DR. LUSHINGTON, without hearing Addams and Twiss, who appeared for the barque, called on Haggard and Robinson for the steamer, and then said :-The Trinity Masters and myself Judgment. are quite clear about this case; even on the statement and evi- No sufficient dence of the Ericsson herself, she was going nearly ten knots an hour, and it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that steamer. if there had been a proper look-out she would have seen the barque at quite sufficient distance to have avoided the collision. We think the barque was right in not porting her helm whilst she saw the green light of the steamer. She did not see the red light till the steamer ported her helm, and it was then too late for the barque to have ported, and she was justified in starboarding to ease the blow. Assuming that the American vessel was within three miles of the coast, and so subject to British statute law-for I will decide nothing on either of these points till they are formally before me--I do not think the provisions of the 296th section of the Merchant Shipping Act apply to the other circumstances of the case. It has been argued that the barque, on the port tack with the wind free, ought to have ported her helm when she saw the green light of the steamer approaching on her starboard side. If she had ported her helm, the effect would have been to throw herself across the course of the steamer. But the statute orders no such thing; the words are, "Whenever any ship proceeding in one direction meets another ship proceeding in another direction, so that, if both ships were to continue their respective courses, they would pass so near as to involve any risk of collision, the helms of both ships shall be put to port so as to pass on the port side of each other." as long as the green light is seen broad on the starboard there is no danger of collision. It never was intended when a vessel sees another at the distance of two miles, that she is to begin to change her course because there is a possi- imposed by the bility of a collision. The intention of the statute is, that when two vessels are approaching each other and are within such a distance that there is strong probability of collision if both keep their courses, in that case both vessels are to port. But Risk of colbow lision, not merely a posthat sibility of collision, is the condition As to the light shown by the barque, it seems to have been of the usual description and shown in the proper position. No interrogatories have been put to the crew of the barque on this point, which ought to have been done if there was doubt about it. I think it also my duty, considering the respective sizes of the two vessels-the Ericsson, a steamer of near 2,000 tons, the barque statute. 1856. Jan. 29. not quite 300-to animadvert on the conduct of the Ericsson after the collision, in not taking proper measures to afford assistance to the barque, which she had every reason to suppose must have been seriously damaged. This being an American vessel, the persons on board of her are not within British jurisdiction. In the case of a British steamer so misconducting herself I should have thought it my duty to recommend the Board of Trade to institute a criminal prosecution. Rothery, proctor for the barque. Toller, for the steamer. Jan. 30. THE LEDA, CUTHBERT, Master. Salvage-Action in 2001.—Appearance under Protest under An action for salvage rendered without the limits of the Cinque Ports, but within ΟΝ the 28th of October last, during a heavy gale, the schooner Leda was observed from Blakeney Town running towards the land under reefed sails, with a flag flying half-mast high in her topmast rigging. The life-boat Sailors' Friend was manned with eighteen hands, and proceeded down the harbour towards the bar. The schooner was then distant about a mile from the land, but when the life boat reached the bar, a mile and a half from the town, she was about a quarter of a mile from them. After boarding her, they brought her round the point into Blakeney Pit, and there moored her in safety. They entered an action against her in the sum of 200l. to obtain compensation for their services. The owners of the schooner appeared under protest, and alleged that in and by the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 460, it was expressly provided that the |