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

AA Late Decisions in Mariti Legal Tips For Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for The Marine Review HE relation. and duties of tug to tow were in issue in the case of Gilchrist Transportation Co. vs. Great Lakes Towing Co., 237 Federal Reporter 432, and the court there de- cided that the general rule is that one undertaking towage service for another is .bound to exercise reasonable skill and care in everything relating to the work undertaken, until it is accom- | plished; he is not an insurer, nor re- quired to use the highest possible de- gree of skill and care. It was further held that a tug, in her home waters at any rate, is chargeable with knowledge of the ordinary currents and tides, the channels, depth of water and well-known obstructions. She impliedly warrants that she has sufficient power and ability to perform the service which is to be undertaken, under conditions which are to be reasonably anticipated. And she is also required to know whether, under the conditions then prevailing or reason- ably to be expected, it is safe to make the proposed venture, whatever it may be. However, a mere mistake in judg- ment in this ‘latter respect is not suffi- cient to charge her with negligence, but the error must be one which a careful and prudent navigator, surrounded by like circumstances, would not have made. Where inevitable accident is relied upon by a tug, it is incumbent upon it to show what the cause of grounding was, and that the result of the cause was inevitable, in the sense that it occurred in spite of everything that. nautical skill, care and precaution could do, or to show all possible causes and as to all such that the result was . inevitable in the sense which is before mentioned. x * x A “deserter”, it was decided in STRAT- HEARN, 239 Federal Reporter 583, is one continually and intentionally absent from the ship, constituting a quitting of the service of the vessel. * * * It is not eg ae to charge a vessel with the fault of a-collision, it was held in Joon G. McCuttoucH, 239 Federal Reporter 111, that the stern light was not more than 10 feet lower than the forward light, instead of 15 feet, as required by Inland Rules. sk Oe That a ship is in charge of a com- pulsory pilot at the time of a collision for which she was in fault does not absolve her from liability for death of persons. caused by such collision, ac- cording to Indra Line, Ltd., vs. Pal- metto Phosphate Co., 239 Federal Re- porter 94, * * x The fact that the merchant vessel ATTUALITA had been requisitioned by the NATAL GOR FAA By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law Italian government and employed at a fixed hire, did not exempt it from a suit in rem in a court of the United States, it appearing that the vessel re- mained under the control and manage- ment of: the owner, who employed and paid the officers and crew.—238 Federal Reporter 909. * * x A pile driver was held liable in PILE Driver No. 2, 239 Federal Reporter 489, for the action of a member of its crew in cutting off ends of piles on a cata- maran alongside, which was being used together with the pile driver in repair- ing a ferry rack in North river, and the throwing of the ends into the river, where they became a menace to navi- gation. Bee RE ak Where a ship withdraws from a char- ter, the charterer may recover damages measured by the difference between the charter hire and the hire necessary to secure another vessel, if a _ substitute vessel equal to the vessel withdrawn can be secured. Otherwise, it was decided in Apa, 239 Federal Reporter 363, re- covery can be had only for lost profits based upon the usual rates of freight at the time and place and the cargo that could probably have been obtained. ee The steamship INDRAPURA went into drydock at Hong Kong with a partial cargo transshipped to her under through bills of lading, and the question arose in the case reported in 238 Federal Re- porter 853, whether this act was a devia- tion which rendered her or her charterer liable for loss of cargo while in dock. The court found that going into drydock was in accordance with a general cus- tom of the port, was a customary inci- dent of the voyage, and hence that there was no liability. Mo ke The case of KRONPRINZESSIN CECILIE, 228 Federal Reporter 946 (see THE Marine Review of June, 1916), was re- versed in 238 Federal Reporter 668, where the court held that the vessel was liable for failure to deliver its cargo of specie consigned to Plymouth, England, and Cherbourg, France. It was said that the wireless message sent by the own- ers from Bremen, “Turn back to New York,” which message was prefaced by the statement that war had broken out between Germany and England, France and Russia, left the master of the boat no choice but to.,obey. “By assuming to direct from Bretmen, as it did, the course which the ship should take, her owner assumed, for itself‘ and the ship, all such responsibility, and lost all right es charge the master with any share OF <1t; ex “Where, after salvage service has been 254 OC = = E S 2 : He performed, a full and fair disclosure of the amount of salvage received is made to the crew, and the extent of their rights is fully and fairly explained to them, and they are given an opportunity of hearing this’ and discussing it with some third party, such as a United States commissioner, or any lawyer rep- resenting them, or any unbiased third party.... the members of the crew enter into a final agreement accepting a stipu- lated sum for their share of the salvage, and receive that sum and execute a re- lease, that ought to be given full: con- sideration as normally affecting a final settlement of this claim.”—Rivers vs.. Lockwood, 239 Federal Reporter 380. The court remarked further that salvage is paid much as a matter of public pol- icy, to stimulate effort. And in Hatcyon, 239 Federal Reporter 840, the © court decided: “It is the theory and policy of the law of salvage to promote intrepidity, promptness and_ skill in rescuing the imperiled vessel. Lack of skilful operation, with or without in- jurious results, may diminish the award; while, on the other hand, the skilfulness of the rescue may influence the award by increasing it.” xk * * The master and chief engineer of OrrEGON, a merchant vessel under the flag of the United States, seized as a prize by the British, were not entitled to wages during the time they were held in custody as witnesses, it not appearing that they rendered any volun- tary service to the vessel during such time. The court, in the case of Swan- son et al. v. Linga et al. 238 Federal Reporter 253, in deciding the case, said: “Had the libelants, in an honest en- deavor to save the ship and its cargo for their owners, remained voluntariiy by the ship until condemnation, or until all hope of recovery was gone, their case would fall within principles fairly well settled. * * * For such _ invol- untary services performed on the con- straint of the captors, and it may be for their benefit, they have no claim upon the owners.” The court also said: “It has been frequently held that upon the capture of a neutral vessel by a belligerent it is the duty of the master to remain by the ship until a condemna- tion, or until all hope of recovery is gone, and that he is entrusted with authority and obligation to interpose a claim for the property before the proper tribunal, and to endeavor by all means in his power to make a just and proper defense, and that, as these are his duties, he is entitled to receive compensation for his services in perform- ing them, such compensation to be paid by the owner of the ship in the first instance, and ultimately as a_ general average charge by all the parties in interest.” ; 4 3