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

Iz eT | I L ——Oo——oooocnOOiC CCAR HE question of general aver- age contribution rests, it was decided in Pittsburgh & Erie Coal Co. v. George Urban Milling Co., 226 Federal Reporter 332, upon equitable grounds, and renders the vessel liable only for her fault, and not for an error of judgment on the part of the navigator, as a result of which an accident occurs, to the in- jury of the cargo. oe A wharf owner who directed that a heavily loaded barge be placed in an unsuitable berth, where at low tide she rested on the bottom, was de- ciared; if C. F. Harms Co. v.. Upper Hudson. Stone Co., 225 Federal Re- porter 630, to be liable for injuries resulting, it appearing that the owner had notice of conditions. The tug leaving such barge was absolved from fault, the condition of the berth not being apparent. pe ae A barge lying alongside a bulkhead between 134th and 136th streets on the west side of East river, New York, was held,.in Henry Steers, 226 Federal Reporter 818, to not be in a channel, but in a place which was virtually a slip, and hence was not in’ fault when struck and injured by a boat in tow of a tug, which was bringing it up to the south of the 136th street pier. Me ke The liability of a city for injuries occurring in a harbor was passed on in. the case of Jolivet v. City of Seat- tle, 226 Federal Reporter 963, where the court said: ‘Where the munici- pality has control of the waters and of the buoys, and maintains super- vision. of the anchorage grounds, and issues permits for harbor privileges, and makes a charge therefor, it is liable for damage “caused by negli- gence in the discharge of the as- sumed duties.” ! ee ae It was shown in the case of Citta Dr _PatermMo, 226 Federal Reporter 529, that damage was done to a ship- mént of hides from sea water, which entered through holes in the plates of a steamship where the outer ends of the rivets were gone, but the court decided that in the absence of evi- dence that such rivets were in good condition when the voyage com- menced, that the defects were latent and could not have been discovered by. proper inspection, or that they wete in fact examined when the ves- sel was last inspected several months before, the steamship was liable. ey eee The case of PLEASURE Bay, 226 Federal Reporter 55, enumerates the blown, 00400 Legal Tips For Ship Owners and Off Specially Compiled for The Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman | Attorney at Law elements to be considered in case of salvage service as tollows: “The t1abor expended by the salvors in rendering the service. Promptitude, skill and energy displayed in render- ing the service and saving the prop- erty. Lhe value ot the property em- ployed by the salvors, and the dam- age to which such property was ex- posed. The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril. ‘Lhe value of the property rescued. The degree of danger trom which the property was rescued.” Ho Article 25 of the Rules of Navi- gation of Inland Waters, providing that in narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when it is safe and prac- ticable, keep to that side of the fair- way or miud-channel which lies on the starboard of such vessel, was re- cently construed in the cases of Santa Maria, 227 Federal Reporter 149, and Betrast, 226 Federal Reporter 362. In the former case it was de- clared that such article is not abso- lute, but applies only when the course is sate and practicable, and that it is subject to the “special cir- cumstances’ provision of article 27. The latter case held that the article is a rule of the road and defines the respective rights of moving vessels in narrow channels, and that as against a vessel not proceeding, but wrongfully lying at anchor, the right of a traveling vessel is superior in any part of the channel. ee ae a boat As a general proposition, coming out of a slip, blowing a slip: whistle, must give a proper warning by the slip whistle to everything that is not visible to the lookout of the boat, and also it must so con- duct itself that it can avoid running down any boat that may be in a po- sition to be mislead, or not able to protect itself, at the warning of the slip whistle. If a _ slip whistle is and the boat coming out finds a vessel in the way coming from the right, or the starboard, then all the rules of navigation, including the starboard hand rule, put upon the vessel coming out the burden of using the proper maneuver, or choosing the proper course, to avoid any injury that cannot be prevented by the mere giving of the slip whistle— James P. McGuirl, 225 Federal Re- porter 662. * * * The effect of state legislation on maritime law was considered in the case of Swayne & Hoyt v. Barsch, 226 Federal Reporter 581, where it was observed that the maritime law of the United States subsists as an 78 ies cl entirety, of which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, and must be administered by them unaffected by state legislation. Plaintiff in the case was injured while working on a.dock. at. Portland, Ore, im aa charging a vessel, and the court held that the Oregon employers’ liability law, providing that whenever neces- sary for the safety of persons em- ployed in and about it, all machinery not operated by hand power shall be provided with a system of com- munication by means of signals, was applicable, since the case was not within the admiralty jurisdiction. It was further said that the state law was not rendered inapplicable by the fact that plaintiff's contract of em- ployment was a maritime contract, since he was suing, not upon the contract, but on the ground of neg- ligence. os pee An interesting case growing out of the European war is that ot Epsom, 227 Federal Reporter 158, "Certain seamen signed shipping articles in England, in February, 1914, for three years’ service on a British steamship for a voyage to certain North and South American ports. When reach- ing a South American: port it was learned that the war had commenced and that. German cruisers were at- tacking British merchant vessels, and one of the German cruisers entered the port for coal. The ship carried a cargo of contraband articles des- tined for London, and on leaving the port the ship’s lights were, by order of her officers, darkened. It was de- cided that the risks occasioned by the war were extraordinary, and, hence, that the seamen were justified in refusing to proceed under the ar- ticles signed by them. The court said: . “They. agreed to serve on a voyage attended by the risks of peace, and not on a voyage attended by the risks of war.” The seamen being Americah citizens, a question of jurisdiction was raised, and the court made the interesting decision: “An American citizen, when he signs shipping articles and steps upon a British ship, flying the British flag, becomes entitled to the protection and the benefit of the British law as fully as a British subject; but he. does not thereby forfeit his citizen- ship, nor: his right to redress wrongs in the courts “of his own country. The right to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts by a citizen of the United States for the purpose of determining a dispute under shipping articles with a foreign vessel is a constitutional right, which the courts cannot deny.”