Collision. 10. Those on board the Katie improperly neglected to starboard her helm before the said collision. (Title.) The plaintiffs join issue upon the defendants' statement of defence. Collision 7. (Title.) Statement of Claim. 1. Shortly before 7.45 on the evening of the 19th of May, 1880, (River). the screw steamer Lucent, of which the plaintiffs are owners, of 955 (Alterna- tons register, was in Limehouse Reach of the River Thames, bound tive claim for the River Tyne, in water ballast. She was manned by a crew of against twenty hands, all told, and had two passengers on board, and was two ships.) in charge of a Trinity House pilot. 2. The weather was then fine and it was daylight. The tide was last quarter flood, running about one knot per hour, and there was little or no wind. The regulation lights on board the Lucent were duly exhibited, and were burning brightly, and a good look-out was kept on board her. 3. At that time the Lucent, which had shortly before come out of the Surrey Commercial Docks, had about straightened down the river, and was steaming down rather to the south of midstream, at the speed of from one to two knots per hour. In these circumstances those on board her saw the steamship Allegro coming up the river about half a mile distant, and about two points on the port bow. The Lucent thereupon first stopped her engines and then put them on slow ahead, with a port helm, and then stopped them again and steadied her helm, the two vessels being in a position to pass port side to port side; the Allegro, however, as she approached, was seen to be coming off as if under starboard helm, and, though she was loudly hailed and the engines of the Lucent were put full speed astern and her helm hard a-port, the Allegro came on with undiminished speed, and with her stem cut into the port bow of the Lucent, and did her great damage. 4. At or about the time when the Allegro so came into collision with the Lucent, a screw steamship called the Onward, whose owners are the defendants, the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company, was also coming up the river, and passed near the Allegro on her north or starboard side. The defendants, the owners of the Allegro, allege that the Onward was passing dangerously close to the Allegro, and that the suction caused by her so passing prevented the Allegro from answering her port helm, or threw the Allegro's head to port and into the Lucent, and they therefore deny that the Allegro caused or contributed to the collision. 5. The defendants, the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company, deny that their vessel caused or contributed to the collision, and say that it was caused by the Allegro only. 6. The plaintiffs are therefore in doubt which of the two vessels Collision. caused the collision, or whether the collision was not caused by the joint bad navigation of both vessels, and joint negligence of those on board both vessels. 7. Both sets of defendants admit, and it is the fact, that the collision was not caused or contributed to by the plaintiffs, or by any of those on board the Lucent, and that it was caused by the bad navigation of one or other (if not both) of the vessels Allegro and Onward; but each set insists that the other is liable for the collision. The plaintiffs claim as follows: 1. That it may be determined as between them and all the 2. That it may be declared that the defendants, the owners of 3. That in such costs may be included such costs (if any) as 4. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may (Title.) Statement of Defence of the Defendants, the Owners of the "Allegro." 1. Between 7.30 p.m. and 7.45 p.m. on the 19th day of May, 1880, the Swedish screw steamship Allegro, of 775 tons register, of which the defendants were owners, whilst on a voyage from Ljusne, in the Gulf of Bothnia, to London, with cargo and one passenger, was rounding Millwall Point into Limehouse Reach in the River Thames. She was in charge of a duly licensed Trinity pilot. 2. The wind at such time was about north-west, the weather was fine and it was daylight, and the tide was flood and of the force of about one knot per hour, and the Allegro was proceeding at the rate of about three knots per hour, with a good look-out being kept. 3. At such time the Lucent was seen at the distance of about three-quarters of a mile to a mile from the Allegro, a little on her starboard bow, and coming down the Reach about midchannel. The Allegro kept her port helm, and her engines were stopped, and she straightened up the Reach, and the two vessels were then in a position to pass each other port side to port side, and the engines of the Allegro were set on easy ahead. 4. As the Allegro and Lucent were approaching one another, in a position to pass port side to port side, a steamship called the Onward was seen to be coming up rapidly, overtaking the Allegro, and proceeding to pass dangerously close to her on her starboard side. By Collision. order of her pilot, the engines of the Allegro were put full speed ahead and her helm was put hard a-port, but owing to the proximity of the Onward, and the suction caused by her, the Allegro did not answer her port helm, and her head fell off to port. The engines of the Allegro were by order of her pilot reversed full speed astern, and after they had been reversing for some time her helm was, by his order, put hard a-starboard, but the Allegro with her stem came into collision with the port bow of the Lucent. 5. Save as herein admitted, the defendants deny the truth of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of claim. 6. The said defendants do not admit the truth of paragraph 5 of the statement of claim. 7. The said defendants say that the collision was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of the defendants or of those on board the Allegro, and they do say that it was caused by the Onward coming too close as aforesaid, and they do not attribute blame to the Lucent. 8. The defendants further say that before and at the time of the said collision the Allegro was being navigated within a district and under circumstances in which it was compulsory by law that she should have on board, and be in charge of, a duly qualified pilot for such district, and that if, and so far as, the said collision was occasioned by any negligent or improper navigation of the Allegro, it was solely occasioned by some fault or incapacity of the said pilot, who was a qualified pilot acting in charge of the Allegro within a district where the employment of such pilot was compulsory by law, within the meaning of the 388th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. (Title.) Statement of Defence on behalf of the Great Northern Steamship 1. About 7 p.m. on the 19th May, 1880, the screw steamship was in the River Thames on a voyage from the North Sea to London. 2. The weather at such time was fine, the tide was flood, running about one knot an hour, and the wind was about north-west, and the Onward was proceeding up Black wall Reach to the northward of mid-channel at the rate of about nine knots an hour, with a good look-out kept on board of her. 3. At such time the Allegro, which had previously been seen proceeding up the river, was more particularly noticed about a quarter of a mile distant, and a little on the port bow of the Onward; and the Onward being the faster vessel of the two had been overhauling her, and as at this time the Onward was approaching the top of the Blackwall Reach her engines were eased until she had rounded the Point. After rounding the Point, and on seeing all was clear above the Point, the Onward again proceeded at full speed, and as she was drawing up to the quarter of the Allegro, the Lucent was observed to be coming down. 4. Those on board the Onward then observed the Allegro, which Collision. had a clear eye and might have kept her course, and might, if necessary, have given the Lucent more room, going off towards the Lucent as if under a starboard helm, and although the Allegro was hailed by those on board the Lucent she continued to proceed towards the Lucent, and with her stem struck the Lucent on the port bow and did her much damage. The Onward, which was proceeding to pass well clear of the Allegro, was never in danger of collision with either vessel, and at the time of the collision was above both vessels. 5. The defendants, the owners of the Onward, do not know whether the said collision was caused by any neglect or default on the part of those on board the Lucent, and must not be taken as admitting or that it is the fact that the collision was not caused or contributed to by those on board the Lucent. 6. The defendants, the owners of the Onward, allege that the said collision was caused by the neglect or default of those on board the Allegro in not keeping on their course, and in improperly starboarding her helm, and in not duly easing and stopping and reversing her engines before the said collision, and in not keeping a good look-out, or by one or more of such acts and defaults. 7. The defendants, the owners of the Onward, deny that the said collision was caused by the bad navigation of the Onward. 8. Save as herein before admitted, the truth of the allegations in the statement of claim is denied. (Title.) 1. The plaintiffs join issue upon the statement of defence of the defendants, the owners of the steamship Allegro. 2. The plaintiffs join issue upon the statement of defence of the defendants, the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company. 8. (Title.) Statement of Claim. 1. The Express is a foreign vessel of which no owner or part owner Damage was at the time of the institution of this cause domiciled in England to cargo. or Wales. 2. In or about the month of June, 1870, whilst the Express was lying in the port of Taganrog, the plaintiff caused to be shipped on board of her a cargo of rye, and the master of the said vessel accepted the same to be carried in the said ship from Taganrog aforesaid to Queenstown, Falmouth, or Plymouth for orders, and thence to a port as ordered under and according to the terms of a certain bill of lading duly signed and delivered by the said master, according to which bill of lading the said goods were to be delivered in the like good order and condition as they were shipped in at a safe afloat port in the United Kingdom, or on the Continent, as per a certain charterparty (the act of God, the Queen's enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation of Damage whatever nature and kind soever excepted) unto the plaintiffs of to Cargo. London, or to their assigns, paying freight, gratuity, and demurrage (if any) for the said goods, and other conditions, as per charterparty. Defence. 3. The Express duly sailed on her said voyage with the said cargo on board, and in the course of the said voyage without any justifiable cause or excuse put into the port of Gibraltar. After the said vessel had so put into the said port, and whilst she was lying there, her master was requested by the plaintiffs to proceed on the beforementioned voyage, and if he would not do so then to tranship and forward the said cargo. 4. The said master however declined to comply with such request, and remained at Gibraltar with his said vessel, with the said cargo on board of her, a very considerable time. 5. By reason of the premises the said master wrongfully and without justifiable cause, in violation of the terms of the said bill of lading, deviated from and delayed proceeding on the voyage in the said bill of lading mentioned. 6. The plaintiffs were and are the owners of the said cargo, and the holders of the said bill of lading. 7. By reason of the premises, the said cargo became and was greatly heated, damaged, and depreciated, and the said cargo was delivered to the plaintiffs in a much worse order and condition than it was shipped in, this not being occasioned by any of the perils, causes, or matters in the said bill of lading excepted; and thereby the plaintiffs have sustained great loss, and have been deprived of divers profits which they would otherwise have derived from the said 2. The condemnatiou of the said vessel, and the defendants and (Title.) Statement of Defence. 1. In the month of May, 1870, the Express, which then was and ever since has been, and still is, a vessel sailing under the flag of the North German Confederation, and belonging to the port of Rostock, in the Duchy of Mecklenburg, one of the States of the said Confederation, and owned by persons being subjects of the said Confederation, was lying in the port of Constantinople, and on the third day of the said month of May, a charter-party was made and entered into between Wilhelm Freturirst, the master of the Express, and Messrs. Schott and Reppen, merchants of Constantinople, and subjects of the said Confederation. By such charter-party it was agreed that the Express, under the German flag, should proceed to a loading place in the Azoff, as ordered at Berdianski, and there load from the factors of the freighter a full and complete cargo of tallow, wheat, Indian corn, seed, or other stowage goods, at the option of the freighter; and being so loaded should therewith proceed to a safe port in the United Kingdom, or a safe port on the Continent between Havre and Hamburg, |