to have obliged them not to throw all responsibility of avoiding a collision upon the Ada. These vessels were not on a course in the sense of Art. 14. The way a ship's head is pointed at any given moment does not constitute her course; her course is the direction in which she should be navigated to reach a given point. If this given point is known to another vessel, she should act upon that knowledge. Both vessels were bound up the river to Hull, and each must, with the knowledge of the other, take a pilot at the one place; for that purpose they must bear down upon one place and stop, and, having got their pilot, change their directions to proceed up the river. Hence, neither could be said to be on a course after stopping, until they went a-head to go up the river. The Ada was entitled to keep her course along the left bank of the river, and the Sappho in crossing over had no right to interfere with that course: (The Velocity, L. Rep. 3 P. C. 44; 21 L. T. Rep. 686; 3 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 308). If these vessels were approaching each other so as to involve risk of collision, then it was the duty of the Sappho to have stopped and reversed at an earlier period.

Butt, Q.C. and Clarkson, for the respondents, were not called upon.

The judgement of the court was delivered by SIR J. W. COLVILE-Their Lordships do not think it necessary to go at any length into the facts of the case, as they clearly appear upon the judgement of the court below, and the main features are not in dispute.

The first argument upon which the appellants rely in order to disturb the judgment of the High Court of Admiralty is that it is erroneous to treat these vessels as crossing vessels, as they were not, when they first sighted each other, crossing vessels so as to involve risk of collision, and consequently not within Art. 14 of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea; and that even if they did become crossing vessels it was by the fault of the Sappho, which had by improper navigation created the state of things. Upon that view, of course, it would be the duty of their Lordships, provided they were satisfied that it was correct, to advise Her Majesty that the Sappho was solely to blame. The other branch of the argument was that both vessels were within the operation of Art. 16 of the regulations; that they were approaching each other so as to involve risk of collision, and that it was, therefore, the duty of each to slacken speed, and if necessary, to stop and reverse; that the Sappho certainly, and perhaps the Ada, had failed in that duty, and both were to blame. If both failed in that duty, and the breach of that duty was the cause of the collision, then, of course, both would be in fault, and the loss would have to be divided.

In dealing with these arguments, their Lordships think it desirable to consider whether the vessels were crossing vessels within the meaning of the 14th Article, and, consequent thereon, if the assumption which seems to have been the ratio decidendi in the court below was correct. Their Lordships are of opinion that it was correct. It appears that both vessels, the one coming from the northward, the other from the southward, and both bound to Kingston-upon Hull, were under the necessity of proceeding to the same point where the pilot vessel was moored. It appears to their Lordships on the evidence that when first sighted

[PRIV. Co.

the Ada had the other vessel on the starboard bow, and therefore if they were crossing vessels, it was her duty to keep out of the way of the Sappho. Now, their Lordships think that they were crossing vessels within the meaning of the rule, because both were of necessity directing their courses to one point. That point would be the point of intersection of the two courses if prolonged. It was not, as was put in the argument, a case in which one vessel might have proceeded up the north side and the other up the south side of the river, because there was the necessity imposed upon each of going to this one point in order to procure a pilot. It appears to their Lordships that the vessels were properly treated by the learned judge in the court below as falling within Art. 14 of the regulations, and it appears equally clear that the learned judge was right in holding that the Ada had failed in the duty imposed upon her by that rule, and that there were no special circumstances taking her out of the operation of the rule.

In dealing with the disputed question of speed, the learned judge relied upon the captain of the pilot vessel, who was on board his own pilot vessel. As regards the speed of the two vessels, it appears to their Lordships that he was in the best position to judge-more particularly with regard to the Sappho's speed. Standing on the deck of his own vessel at archor, and evidently having his attention directed to the movements of the two vessels, he could best judge of their speed, and their Lordships therefore adopt without hesitation his statement that the speed of the Sappho was 14 knots through the water, and therefore about three knots per hour over the ground. It also appears to their Lordships to be made out by that witness that the Ada was not motionless (as represented by some of the witnesses) at the place where she stopped expecting a pilot, but she had decided headway on her, and was approaching both the Sappho and the pilot cutter. The rate of speed attributed to her was nearly as great as that of the Sappho, namely, 1 knots through the water, but she was coming across the tide.

Now, it appears to their Lordships that upon this state of facts two questions arise: first, was the Sappho justified in getting so far past the pilot cutter as she certainly did, as shown by the place where the collision occurred; and, secondly, was the Ada right in advancing so near to the pilot cutter, or in fact in going ahead at all under the circumstances? As regards the first question, their Lordships are of opinion, and their opinion is confirmed by that of their nautical assessors, that if there had been no question at all of another ship, which is the fair way to treat the matter, it would have been the ordinary and proper course of navigation to keep such headway as she is represented to have had in order to enable her in getting a pilot on board to turn and follow the proper course of the river up to Hull; that is, having come as far over as the place where the pilot cutter is represented to have been moored, to turn up towards the Spurm Light, so as to get into the proper course of navigation; and that in fact both vessels, situated as they were, would have had to follow the same course up the river from that point. Their Lordships, therefore, cannot say that the allegation is made out that the Sappho improperly threw herself into the way of the other

PRIV. CO.]

vessel, and in fact created the risk of collision which otherwise would not have existed. On the other hand, if the vessels were crossing vessels, as their Lordships think they were, and, as their Lordships also think, and the event has shown, vessels crossing 'so as to involve risk of collision, it seems to their Lordships that it was the duty of the Ada to have become absolutely motionless at a far earlier period than that at which she is said by some of the witnesses to have stopped, and this when it did, or ought to have, become clear that the Sappho was coming inside the pilot vessel, and therefore would be the first to take the pilot, to have had the means of reversing her engines, and keeping out of the way. If she could not have done that, and their Lordships can see no reason why she could not, then she ought to have been navigated differently, and have been kept out of the way by some other means. No doubt both vessels at the last moment, and when too late, did reverse their engines, but that does not show, in their Lordships' opinion, any contributory negligence on the part of the Sappho, if she was pursuing, as their Lordships think she was, her ordinary course, keeping no more headway on her than was necessary to give her steerage way enough to put her upon her proper course of navigation.

Under the circumstances of the case their Lordships must humbly advise Her Majesty to affirm the judgment under appeal, and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Proctors for the appellants, Dyke and Stokes. Proctors for the respondent, Pritchard and Sons, for J. and T. W. Hearfield, Hull.

May 2, 3, and 30, 1873.

(Present: The Right Hons. SIR J. W. COLVILE, Sir BARNES PEACOCK, Sir MONTAGUE SMITH, and Sir R. P. COLLIER.)

BROWN (app.) v. GAUDET (resp.); CARGO ex ARGO (A). Carriage of goods-Bill of lading-Port-Usual place of delivery-Impossibility of performaceLanding goods-"Goods to be taken out."-Duty

(a) The decision in this case, and the legislation upon which it is founded, carry out a principle of maritime law which seems to be in full force in almost every country except our own, viz., that whilst the ship is bound to the cargo for the performance of the contract, the cargo is equally bound to the ship. Before the recent Acts giving maritime jurisdiction to the County Courts the only means a master or shipowner had of enforcing a lien upon goods was to retain possession of them until security given to answer his claim. Now he may proceed in rem against the goods themselves, and so enforce his lien. This assimilates the practice in this country to that of the United States: (See Parsons on Shipping, vol. 1, p. 174, and notes.) The extraordinary condition of English law in the question of liens for freight and expenses has already been noticed in a note to the case of Mors-Le-Blanch v. Wilson (ante vol. i., p. 605). The County Court is the only court in this country with jurisdiction to enforce such a lien by a proceeding in rem. Whether the new Judicature Act will, by uniting all jurisdiction in one court, revive any former powers which were exercised by the High Court of the Admiralty, but prohibited by the common law courts, is a question which will, no doubt, be raised in due time. A proceeding in rem being merely a form of procedure, it is quite possible that the High Court might by its rules give the remedies which can now only be obtained through the County Court.-ED.

[PRIV. Co.

of shipowner and merchant-Master's authority— Demurrage-Expenses-Back freight.

The duty of a shipowner to deliver goods at the usual place of delivery of a port, to which he has contracted to carry under a bill of lading stipu lating only that the goods shall be delivered at the port without any particular part of the port being named, is an implied duty only, and does not amount to any engagement to go to the usual place in all events and under all circumstances. The shipowner's express contract is to deliver in the port, and if it be impossible to deliver at the usual place of delivery by reason of the prohibition of the port authorities, or other accidental cause, the contract is not dissolved, but may be performed by the master being ready to give delivery at some other convenient part of the port, and keeping the cargo in that place for a reasonable time ready for delivery, and the shipowner will thereupon be entitled to his freight.

A bill of lading by which a shipowner_contracts to deliver at a port, "the goods to be taken out within 24 hours after arrival or pay demurrage," does not absolutely require that the shipownershould be ready, not merely to deliver, but also to land the goods in the port, or that the merchant should be able, on receiving them, to land them, but it casts upon the merchant the duty of taking the goods out of, or, at all events, from alongside, the ship; hence, if it should be impossible to land the goods, by reason of a prohibition of the port authorities, the shipowner may still perform his part of the contract if he be ready to deliver the goods to the merchant in the port without landing them. The master of a ship being, in many cases of accident and emergency, the agent from necessity of the owners of cargo where he cannot obtain instructions from them, has not only the power, but a duty cast upon him, to act in such cases for the safety of the cargo in such manner as may be best under the circumstances in which it may be placed, and is entitled as a correlative right to charge the owner of the cargo with the expenses properly incurred in so doing. The obligation on the part of the master to act for the merchant does not cease after a reasonable time for the latter to take delivery has elapsed, and hence after such time, if it be impossible to land and warehouse the goods, or to leave them at their port of destination, the master may, in the absence of all advises, carry or forward them to such place, even back to the port of shipment, as is most convenient to the owner, and charge him with the expense of so doing.

When goods carried under a bill of lading, by which the shipowner is to deliver at the port of destination, and the merchant is to take them out within 24 hours or pay demurrage, cannot be landed at, but may be delivered within, that port, the shipowner cannot recover from the merchant demurrage and expenses claimed in respect of attempts to land the goods at other ports, before he is ready to give delivery at the port of destination; but he may recover expenses incurred, after he is ready to give delivery at that port in hiring a vessel to store the goods, if thereby the merchant is relieved from the demurrage payable in respect of the detention of the ship.

THIS was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Admiralty, affirming on appeal a decree of the City of London Court Admiralty jurisdic

PRIV. Co.]

tion). The suit was instituted in the City of London Court by the following precipe:

We, Cattarns, Jehu and Cattarns, attorneys, hereby institute a suit for freight, demurrage, and expenses on behalf of Jules Gaudet, of No. 73, Lower East Smithfield, owner of the steamship or vessel Argos, against 147 barrels of petroleum late shipped on board the steamship Argos by W. Horner, but now lying at Plaistow Wharf, Plaistow, in the county of Essex, owner or owners unknown in the sum of 2001. ; and we consent, &c. Dated 28th of Dec., 1870.

To this suit an appearance was entered on behalf of Walter Horner Brown, the owner of the petroleum, and bail was given in the sum of £150. The cause was heard in the City of London Court upon the following

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS.

The plaintiff, who trades under the style of Gaudet Frères, was, in the month of November, 1870, the owner of the British steamer Argos, and of other steamers which were frequent traders between London and Havre, and other ports in the North of France.

The defendant, Walter Horner Brown, is a merchant in Billiter Square, dealing in petroleum, oils, chemicals, and other articles, trading as Walter H. Brown and Co., and on the 25th November he received an order from Messrs. Tuffieré and Prudhon, of Rouen, for two hundred barrels of petroleum, to be delivered free on board, in London, and to be sent to Havre as soon as possible.

In consequence of this the defendant, on the same day sent his clerk to the plaintiff's London brokers (Messrs. Rowell and Racine), to inquire the freight of petroleum from London to Havre, and the probable date of sailing of the next steamer, and was informed the freight would be 158. to 208. per ton, and the steamer would sail about the end of the week. The defendant thereupon arranged to send 147 barrels of petroleum by such steamer, and the same was shipped on board the Argos, on the 5th December, and the captain gave the defendant the following bill of lading:

Shipped in good order, and well conditioned, by W. Horner, in and upon the good steamship called the Argos, whereof is master for the present voyage," Richardson," and now riding at anchor in the river, and bound for Havre, 147 barrels of petroleum. The goods to be taken out

Washington, 1/147 Freight 21 13 Primage 33 2 £24 4 5

within 24 hours after arrival, or pay 101. 10s. a day demurrage... 421cwt. Oqrs. 9lb. Being marked and numbered as in the margin, and are to be delivered in the like good order, and well-conditioned, at the aforesaid port of Havre, the act of God, the Exchngef.25.40 Queen's enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, All goods rivers, machinery, boilers, steam and steam are subject to a landing navigation, of whatever nature or kind charge of 5 soever, excepted, unto order or to their per cent. on assigns, on paying freight for the said the amount goods at the rate of 20s. and 15 per cent. of freight primage per ton gross, with primage and and primage average accustomed. In witness whereof Payable au change de the master or purser of the said ship hath f. 25.10. affirmed to two bills of lading all of this tenor and date, the one of which bills being accomplished the others to stand void. Dated in London, 30th November, 1870. Weight and contents unknown.

accountable for leakage.

Not

W. J. RICHARDSON.

The said bill of lading was by direction of the

[PRIV. CO. defendant made out in the name of W. Horner, his two first names.

Upon the 6th December the defendant applied to the plaintiff's brokers for the name of the ship's broker at Havre, and was informed it was M. H. Généstal, Rue d'Orleans, Havre. Defendant thereupon wrote him the following letter, which was duly received by Généstal, but of which the plaintiff had no notice.

11, Billiter Square, 6th Dec., 1870. Monsieur H. Généstal, 73, Rue d' Orleans, Havre. We beg to inform you that we have shipped upon the steamship Argos,

Washington, 1/147

147 barrels of spirit of petroleum, 21,392 kilogrammes,

to order. These spirits are to be sent to Messrs. Tuffieré and Prudhon, at Rouen, and you must not deliver them unless they present the regular bill of lading endorsed by us.

The freight and other expenses are to be charged on the goods.

Accept, Monsieur, our salutations.

W. H. BROWN & Co.

The Argos sailed with the petroleum and other goods, being a general cargo, at midnight on the 6th December, arrived at Havre 10:30 p.m. on the 7th, and, being unable to land the cargo there, the captain proceeded to Honfleur; and being unable to land it there, he took the ship to Trouville, and was informed there he might land it there if he obtained a certificate from the engineer of bridges and ways resident at Honfleur; and the captain thereupon went to Honfluer, and obtained the following certificate :

Honfleur, le 8 Décembre, 1870. L'Ingenieur Ordinaire de l' Arrondissement du Nord Est.

A Monsieur, L'Ingenieur Soussigné a envoyé le steamer Argos à Trouville à cause du danger tout particulier en ce moment qu'offre la présence du pétrole sur les quais à côté du matériel de guerre en chargement pour le Havre. Le Soussigné à écrit à ce sujet M. Dubose une lettre qui lui parviendra demain matin et qui indique les precautions à prendre sous le benefice de ces precautions et en installant de suite un garde-feu à bord pour empêcher.

M. Dubose peut faire entrer le steamer Argos en bassin ce-soir a la marée.

E. ARNOUX, L'Ingenieur Ordinaire.
Arrondissement du Nord Est,

Ponts et Chaussées, Departement du Calvados, The captain, under this authority, took the ship into the basin at Trouville Deauville, where he remained during the 9th, and was on the 10th compelled to go out of the basin; and the President of the Municipal Commission of Trouville Deauville, endorsed on the engineer's authority the following certificate :

Nous President de la Commission Municipale de Deauville certifions que nous avons été obligés malgré l'autorisation de Monsieur l'Ingenieur d'Honfleur de faire sortir du bassin de Deauville le navire Anglais Argos chargé de pétrole, le population s'opposant au déchargement du dit navire et menaçant de se laisser entraîner à des excès. (Sd.) HEBERT DEROCQUETT,

Le President de la Commision Municipale,
Le Membre Délégue.

Deauville, 10 Décembre, 1870. Upon that the captain went to Honfleur, and the following protest was noted before the British Consul there, and the statements therein are to be taken as true:

Vice-Consulat Britannique à Honfleur. By this public Instrument of Protest be it known and manifest unto all whom it doth or may concern, that on the 10th Dec. 1870, before me, British Vice-Consul for the port and district of Honfleur, voluntarily

PRIV. Co.]

came and personally appeared William John Richardson, master of the British steamship or vessel called the Argos, of London, official No. 60,839, of the burden of 109 tons, or thereabouts, then lying in the port of Trouville-sur-Mer, in the consular district of Honfleur, laden with petroleum, who duly noted and entered his protest with me, the said Vice-Consul, against all losses and charges he incurred for not being allowed to unload his cargo in the port of destination and two other ports, by the local authorities of these ports, and did declare, depose, and say, That he sailed from London on the 6th Dec., present month, at midnight, with a cargo of petroleum, in destination for Havre, where he arrived on the 7th, at 10:30 p.m., having the red flag up on account of having petroleum on board, and that early in the morning of the 8th Dec. the authorities at the port of Havre compelled him to take the ship out of the harbour, as they would not allow him to remain there, having petroleum on board, and in consequence of which he started immediately, at 10:30 p.m., for Honfleur, where he arrived at 11:30a.m., and having swung the vessel, and was about to make her fast in a position where the pilot told him, he received an order from the harbour-master to leave immediately the port, and therefore he did leave, at noon, for the next nearest port, which was Trouville-sur-Mer, and where he arrived at 130 p.m. And the said appearer did further declare, that on arriving at Trouville he found a difficulty for the unloading of the petroleum from the port or harbour-master, or principal of the port, who informed him that he would allow him to unload the petroleum if he could obtain a permission from the Ingenieur des Ponts and Chaussées, residing at Honfleur; and in order to hasten the despatch he immediately employed a cab, and started himself with the broker, M. Hébert, to Honfleur, and obtained the required permiesion, and after which he returned to Trouville, and put the ship in dock next day (Friday, the 9th), waiting further instructions. And further, that to-day (Saturday, the 10th), he met with some objection from the part of the president of the Municipality Administrative Commission of Deauville Trouville, for the landing of the casks in question; and after having made further steps in the case before other authorities he had been ordered to leave the port of Trouville as soon as possible, without landing any of the casks of petroleum, and in consequence of which he went to Honfleur at 3 p.m., in order to deposit, note, and enter his present declaration and protest at this Vice-Consulate with all reserve, to furnish further particulars if required. And therefore the said William John Richardson, master, did declare to protest, and by these presents he does solemnly protest against all and every person or persons whom it doth, shall, or may concern, against all loss of time and charges incurred by the above-mentioned opposals of landing his cargo he met in these three different ports, and doth declare that all damages for delay or detention, and all losses and charges, are and ought to be borne by the merchants and freighters interested, and reserves for himself and his owner all rights against them. And I the said Vice-Consul, at the request of said William John Richardson, master of the said steamship Argos, did and do hereby solemnly protest against the same, in the manner and form aforesaid.

Thus done and protested in the City of Honfleur, at the British Vice-Consulate.

On the 9th Dec., M. Généstal wrote to the defendant as follows:

Your letter of the 6th I have received to-day only. For some time the entry into the port of Havre has been refused to ships carrying petroleum. I have attempted in vain to discharge the 147 barrels at Honfleur, and been compelled to send the Argos to Trouville, where I hope to be able to disembark it. Rouen has been occupied by the Germans, and I have not yet heard from Messrs. Tuffieré and Prudhon. If a judicial sequestration could be obtained at Trouville, he (the officer appointed by the court), would take care of the goods, and he would only deliver against presentation of a regular endorsed bill of lading, and after payment of the freight, and all other expenses.

I cannot truly comprehend how the buyers at Rouen should have directed this petroleum to go to Havre, since

[PRIV. Co.

it has been forbidden in the newspapers to discharge such goods here, and that for more than two months. Accept, gentlemen, my sincere salutations. H. GÉNÉSTAL.

The plaintiff and defendant were throughout personally quite unaware that there was any difficulty in landing petroleum at Havre.

The Argos having other cargo in her, Mr.Duprey, on the part of Généstal, hired a lighter, called the Augustine Amélie, in order that the petroleum might be transshipped into her in Havre outer harbour, or the roads, while the Argos went into dock to unload her other cargo; and the following agreement was entered into:

Havre, le 12 Lec., 1870. Entre le Capitaine Ponetre de sloop Français Augustine Amélie d'une part.

Et M. Généstal, agent du steamer Anglais Argos, d'autre part, a été convenu et reglé ce qui suit.

Le Capitaine Ponetre s'engage à recevoir et garder à son bord jusqu'à Samedi 17 courant 147 futs essence de pétrole les dits futs à transborder dans l'avant port ou en rade du Havre a bord du steamer Anglais Argos.

Il est bien entendu que le Capitaine Ponetre gardera son navire à disposition, de maniére à ce que le transbordement s'opérer sans aucun retard et des la sortie du port du dit steamer Argos, moyennant quoi il lui sera à titre de fret å forfeit la somme de deux cent cinquante francs. PONETRE.

Fait double au Harve, 12 Dec., 1870.

On Monday, 12th Dec., the Argos arrived in Havre Roads, when the captain found permission had already been obtained to enter the outer harbour, and having entered the outer harbour, he transshipped the petroleum into the lighter.

Immediately on the arrival of the Argos ia Havre outer harbour the transshipment of the petroleum into the lighter was commenced, and was finished at 4:30 p.m. on the same day, and at midnight the Argos entered the dock, and was moored alongside the quay, whilst the remainder of her cargo_was discharged, and a fresh cargo shipped for London; and on the 16th, a fresh cargo having been loaded, the Argos came out of dock, and having re-shipped the petroleum, as she was obliged to do by the port authorities at Havre, sailed again for London, where she arrived at 9 a.m. on the 18th Dec.

During the whole of this time no bill of lading was presented to the captain or officers of the Argos, nor was any request made for the delivery of the goods. In the ordinary course of business petroleum would be delivered on the quay at Havre, on presentation of the bill of lading. In this case it would not have been possible for the captain to have landed on the quay, even if the bill of lading had been presented. M. Généstal was well aware at the respective times that the Argos was in dock and moored alongside the quay, and of the various movements of the ship, and of the petroleum having been put on board the lighter.

By reason of the hereinbefore-mentioned circumstances the plaintiff was put to the following expenses :

PRIV. Co.]

And he also claims the following amount of freight :

Freight to Havre Freight back to London

£24 4 5 24 4 5 And he also claims five days' demurrage for the detention of the Argos whilet engaged in travelling from port to port, which, at £10 10s. per day, as per bill of lading, amounts to £52 10s., and she also consumed on her extra journey 5 tons of coal, which, at 18s per ton, amounts to £1 103.

On the 16th December Messrs. Rowell and Racine, the brokers in London for the Argos, wrote Messrs. W. P. Brown and Co. the following letter:

90, Lower Thames-street, London, Messrs, W. H. Brown and Co. 16th December, 1870. Dear Sirs,-Some few days ago we heard that the 147 barrels of petroleum that you shipped per Argos, for Havre, had been landed at Trouville. We now hear that this is a mistake, the authorities there having at the last moment refused to allow it to be landed. The Captain therefore took it back to Havre, where he had to charter a sailing vessel to take charge of it, while he took his ship in port to load (not being permitted to go in with it on board). We expect the Argos back shortly with the 147 barrels on board, and give you notice of the facts at once, so that you may make any arrangement you consider necessary.

The expenses incurred will, we fear, be enormous, and amount (with the freight) to about £128 or £130. (Signed) ROWELL AND RACINE. but to which they had no reply. And in accordance with that letter Messrs. Rowell and Racine gave notice to Messrs. Brown and Co. of the arrival of the Argos with the said petroleum on board by the following memorandum :

MEMORANDUM.

W. HORNER,

In reply Messrs. W. H. Brown and Co. sent the following letter:

From Walter H. Brown and Co.,
11, Billier-square, London, EC.,

19th December, 1870.

}

Το

Messrs. Rowell. and Racine. Seeing that you have failed to fulfil your engagement to deliver 147 barrels petroleum at Havre, according to bills of lading for same in our possession, we here with enclose you invoice for this lot, amounting to £240 10s. 2d., and shall feel obliged by a cheque for the amount at your earliest convenience.

We are buyers of this article at the present time, and although the market has dropped, we shall be happy to treat with you for the purchase of the 147 barrels you have, as you inform us, brought back to London, per Argos; of course, at land gauges.

WALTER H. BROWN AND CO.

And enclosed in their letter was the following invoice :

Messrs. Rowell and Racine,
To Walter H. Brown and Co.

11, Billiter-square, London, 19th December, 1870. Washington, 1/147......147 barrels petroleum spirit. Net gallons, 5382, at 11d per gallon £246 13 6 Discount, 21 per cent. 6 3 4 £240 10 2

And Messrs. Rowell and Racine, in reply to that letter, sent the following letter:

90, Lower Thames-street, London, E.C., Messrs. W. H. Brown and Co. Dec. 20, 1870. Gentlemen,-We have your favour of yesterday, and in reply beg to say that, as you are well aware that it was through no act of the ship's that the goods were not

[PRIV. CO.

landed at Havre, we can hardly imagine that your claim is intended seriously.

Nevertheless, as you seem inclined to dispute our claim, we beg to give you notice that, unless it is settled before three o'clock (3 o'clock) this afternoon, we shall place the matter in the hands of our solicitor, and instruct him to proceed at once to recover the full amount of our account as rendered, and farther, the costs of lighterage of the goods from the ship to the wharf.-We are, Gentlemen, your obedient servants,

ROWELL and RACINE.

Messrs. W. H. Brown and Co. not having paid by the time mentioned, the goods were taken to Plaistow Wharf, and there lodged to the plaintiff's order; and the attorneys for the plaintiff instituted a suit in rem under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this court against the said 147 barrels of petroleum. An appearance was entered to that suit by the defendants' attorneys, and shortly afterwards they, on behalf of W. H. Brown and Co, applied to the plaintiffs' attorneys to release the goods and deliver them to the said W. H. Brown and Co.; whereupon the defendants'attorneys put in bail to answers damages and costs in this suit, and a delivery order was accordingly given, and the said goods were duly delivered to W. H. Brown and Co.; and in order to obtain the delivery of their said goods they had to pay the wharf charges and expenses consequent upon the said goods being landed at Plaistow Wharf.

The cause was heard on the above statement of facts in the City of London Court (before Mr. Commissioner Kerr) on Jan. 4, 1872, and judg ment was given on Jan. 15, 1872, for the plaintiff for the sum of 135l 5s. Sd. with costs. From this decree the defendants appealed to the High Court of Admiralty. The appeal came on for hearing on May 7, 1872, and Sir R. Philimore reserved judg ment. Subsequently the Court of Common Pleas having decided (Simpson v. Blues L. Rep. 7 C. P. 290; 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 697; ante, vol. 1, p. 326) that County Courts had no jurisdiction over such questions beyond that possessed by the High Court of Admiralty, and this being a question over which the latter court has no original jurisdiction, Sir R. Philimore before giving judgment on the merits, ordered the question of jurisdiction to be argued; this question was argued, and the learned judge held, in deference to the opinion of the Common Pleas, that the County Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the cause, and dismissed the suit without costs: (see ante, vol. 1, p. 360; 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 64). The plaintiffs thereupon appealed to the Privy Council, and the decision of the learned judge was there reserved and the jurisdiction pronounced for, and the cause was remitted to the Court of Admiralty that the appeal might be decided on its merits (see ante. vol. 1, p. 519; 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 77). The arguments before the High Court of Admiralty ou the merits were as follows:

May 7th, 1872.-The Admiralty Advocate (Dr. Deane, QC) and Murphy for the appellant (the defendant below).-The rule as to the right to freight is laid down in Maclachlan on Shipping, p. 394. It is there said, " Freight is not due until it is earned; and as the carrier's contract is in its nature entire, nothing short of complete performance satisfies the common law, unless the freighter himself interferes to prevent it. No freight, then, is due, prima facie, unless the whole is earned. By the consent of the freighter, however, the shipowner not insisting on completing his con.