The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Se i008 N THE case of In re John B. Rose Co., reported in 254 Federal Re- porter 367, the court said that normally a vessel, once arrested and discharged, may not again be arrested for the same cause of action. The court, however, then added that there has always been a condition imposed upon the rule that if the stipulation was entered into improvidently or through fraud or mistake the court might order a new arrest. In the case at bar it appeared that some of the towage serv- ices each of which may have consti- tuted a separate cause of action, being 'by separate contract, were omitted in the original bill, and the court held that vessels libeled might be rearrested on an amended libel setting forth such items of services. sk OF The facts in the case of Korea Maru, reported in 254 Federal Reporter 397, showed that two passengers on a steamship were compelled by reason of the stifling condition of their quarters, the heat and impure air, to go upon the lower deck where they were hit by a large wave and injured. A number of interesting 'points of law were raised and the court, in affirming a decision in favor of the passengers, held that a ship is liable for the treatment of a passenger by its physician and surgeon, who was incompetent and unskillful, only when it failed to exercise rea- sonable care in his employment; that although the ship does not insure that the passenger will be carried safely, still it is bound to exercise as high a degree of care, skill, and diligence in receiving a passenger, conveying him to his destination, and setting him down safely, as the means of conveyance employed and the circumstances of the case will permit; that the passengers in going upon the deck for air and exercise, as was customary, did not as- sume the risk, unless the danger was apparent and obvious to them, exercis- ing reasonable care for their own safe- ty, or unless warned by the officers of the danger; that failure of the ship's physician and surgeon to treat one of the two injured passengers, although requested to do so, and treatment of the other for a contused wound when there was a compound fracture of) a bone of the leg, was negligence, for which the ship was liable. * 2k * After declaring that one occupying the position 'of a wharfinger is bound to ordinary care and diligence, and mo more, the court in the case of Morey vy. City of New Rochelle, 254 Federal Reporter 425, held as follows: "The mere fact that a wharf built, or that the berths alongside it 1S SO" - Late Decisions in Maritime Law - Legal Tips For Ship Owners and Officers - fet: Specially Compiled for The Marine Review 2 oe , 3 . By Harry Bowne Skillman a. Attorney at Law aU are so obstructed, that special care is necessary on the part of any vessel us- ing the wharf, is not per se evidence of that lack of care and _ diligence which is negligence. The existence of danger only increases the quantum of the warfinger's duty, and he must in- form those in charge of vessels patron- izing his wharf of just what they must expect to encounter. A vessel is justi- fied in assuming that the wharfinger has .better information than any one else in regard to the condition of his own premises." kk "Admiralty has jurisdiction (where. there is a dispute between owners re- garding the employment of a vessel)," said the court in the case of Oxea, 254 Federal Reporter 439, to require the majority owners to give a bond for the saie return of the vessel. The ad- miralty court has frequently protected the interests of a minority owner." It was further said that on principle it would seem that if an admiralty court has power to issue an injunction pro- hibiting majority owners from taking a vessel on a voyage contrary to the wish of a minority owner, unless they give a bond for its safe return, it has equal power to issue an injunction pro- hibiting owners from exercising other acts of ownership such as transferring title, unless a bond be given that, upon the transfer, the minority owner who objects to such transfer will receive his share of the proceeds. Re The sum of $15,000 was awarded the steamer St. CHARLES in the case re- ported in 254 Federal Reporter 509 as salvage under evidence showiwg that a certain steamship, with a cargo of iron. and valued at $2,000,000, stranded near the coast of Spain, which was in the submarine zone, in September, 1917, that the St. Cuartes, part of a convoy, and valued at $500,000, contrary to or- ders, came to the steamship's assistance and within three hours released her from danger, and that the St. CHartes rejoined her convoy in time to reach the port of destination without loss of time on the part of the convoy. - ok Oe In deciding whether a tug having a vessel in tow was liable for injuries to the tow, the court, in the case of the Teaser, 246 Federal Reporter 219, said: "In navigating a tow, the master of the barge in tow has no voice. * * * The tug is the dominant mind and_ will. 7 = * So far as the proper naviga- tion of the tow is concerned, the law is abundantly settled that the tug leads and commands while the tow is bound 582 'safe navigation. 'by her. AVIA to follow her guidance and conform to her directions. * * * Movement of tug and tow cannot be made under the joint command of the two masters. In such an adventure there can be no divided responsibility. Hence the law imposes upon the tug, not upon the tow, the duty to use a hawser of a length which the law deems essential to Being in sole charge of the navigation of the tow and being solely charged with the observance of laws of navigation, public policy de- mands that the tug shall be liable to the tow for the consequences of he violation of those laws. "In this case the hawser was on the deck of the tug'and was paid out The physical as well as the legal control of the hawser was with her. Anyone acquainted with watermen will appreciate how unlikely it would be for the master of a barge in tow to attempt to control or override the master of the tug in matters of navigation, or that any consideration whatever would be; paid to his views, *, * *. As the master of the tow was without power to control or even influence the master of the tug, we find that the act of the master of the tug in lengthening the hawser, even though upon the re- quest of the master of the tow, was the sole and in legal effect the inde- pendent act of the master of the tug, which being an act violative of laws of navigation, fastens liability upon the tug for its consequences." * 2K * The Crematis, laden with wheat be- longing to the commission for relief in Belgium, collided with the EL Monte near one of the docks in the port of Galveston, Tex., the port of loading, re- sulting in the damaging of some of the wheat by salt water, necessitating un- loading, drying, reconditioning and re- loading. The manner of computing the damages recoverable was one question at issue in the case arising out of such collision, reported in 252 Federal Re- porter 50, and the court held that an allowance to the owner of the difference between the market value of the wheat at Rotterdam, its destination, in sound condition, and the value of the same wheat at Rotterdam in _ its damaged condition was proper, it satisfactorily appearing that it would have been a great sacrifice to have sold the wheat on this side, that the difference between the value of the damaged wheat at Rotterdam and what it would have been worth there if it had not been damaged as a result of the collision was a sum less than the difference between value of that wheat at Galveston be- fore the collision and its value there after it was dried and treated.