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

HIPPING articles are mercantile documents, and are entitled to a liberal construction in order to accomplish the purpose the parties had in mind; nevertheless, under United States revised statutes, section 4511, the articles a seaman is asked to sign should tell him in general terms, at least, what kind of a voyage the mas- ter is then planning to undertake, re- serving on their face, if need be, suffi- cient latitude for the changes which may subsequently arise from the exigen- cies of a successful participation in the world’s carrying trade.—United States v. Westwood, 2066 Federal Re- porter 696. hee a There is no obligation of duty on the part of the owner of a private wharf to give notice of an existing danger to vessels which may make use of the wharf, although not invited bv the owner to do so; a duty rests on the uninvited user to make inquiry.— McAvoy v. Camden Shipbuilding Co., 266 Federal Reporter 710. ge ge A charterer or consignee, it was held in the case of Hans MagrrsK 266 Fed- eral Reporter 806, if the bill of lading incorporates the demurrage clatse, . 15 bound by its agreement that a vessel shall be loaded or discharged within a given time, notwithstanding that the shipowner does the loading and dis- charging. The term “default,’ in the covenant to pay demurrage from day to day for every day’s detention | there- after, does not mean that he is only liable to pay for delay due to his own fault, but means delay due to his fail. ure to perform his covenant that the vessel shall be loaded or discharged in the time agreed upon. He _ takes the risk of all causes of delay, ex- cept those due to the fault of the ship- owner and to vis major. ... e anthins A. aes The abandonment of a valuable steam- er and cargo when they were not past saving is an error in the navigation and management of the vessel, for which the owners are not liable under the Harter act, if they exercised due diligence to make her seaworthy.— THESSALONIKI, 267 Federal Reporter 67. The same case also holds that a steamship company is not an insurer as to passengers, but only liable for or- _dinary care; that is, care according to the circumstances. As to cargo and pas- sengers’ baggage, it is an insurer; but, if the loss is brought within an ex- ception of the bill of lading or of the passenger ticket, proof that the carrier Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law was guilty of negligence lies upon the shipper or consignee and the passenger. Kor ee It is well settled, said the court in the case of ConIScLIFrE, 266 Federal Re- porter 959, that while a vessel is liable for the cure and maintenance of a sailor who is taken ill while serving the vessel, she is not liable for such maintenance and cure when the disease was contracted from the indulgence by the sailor in case of gross indiscretion, or indulging his own vices. A vessel which was required by the government to pay for the treatment of a sailor who had thus contracted a_ disease while on shore was entitled to offset such payment against wages due him. ko Where two tugs were under the same management, the same control, and went for a joint operation to effect the same result, they must be looked upon as conducting one salvage operation and the success of one of them after the other was disabled must be to a certain extent at least credited to the other—APpALACcHE, 266 Federal Re- porter 923. The same case decided that a salvage award of $10,000 should bs distributed 80 per cent to the owners of the tugs and 20 per cent to the crews of the two tugs, in proportion of the monthly wage of each member of the crew. ais nee While it is true that under ordi- nary circumstances it is not negligent for a vessel to extend into the chan- nel. beyond the end of the pier, un- less it prevents or obstructs naviga- tion, or other circumstances make the position dangerous, it was held in the case of Herm, 267 Federal Reporter 373, that a master of a vessel who knew that ice conditions in a harbor had caused his vessel and many others to drag, and who, without any emergency to require it, left a safe anchorage and moored at a dock, with his vessel extending 35 or 40 feet into the fair- way, seeing three anchored barges a short distance away, unable to con- trol themselves by their own power, and all liable to be dragged helplessly upon him, was guilty of negligent sea- manship. +e Where coal was furnished in the usual way to a tug, under the act of June: 23,1910; c, 373,.. 36,5 Stat. «604, a lien was created against the boat which could be enforced, unless the person supplying the necessaries had knowledge that he was dealing with a charterer or an agreed purchaser in pessession. In such case, it was held 58 in the case of Castor, 267 Federal Re- porter 608, he is put upon inquiry as to the terms of the charter or contract. ee ee No recovery can be had by a pas- senger on a wrecked steamship for any articles which are not included within necessary baggage and effects which a traveler may be expected to carry with him, nor will a steamship com- pany be liable for large sums of mon- ey, exceeding in amount that which under ail the circumstances, a wayfarer may be expected to take with him, or for merchandise not intended for per- sonal use.—ViIRGINIA, 266 Federal Re- porter 437. ee fee “When an accident happens within the confines of a nation’s jurisdiction, the laws of that nation apply and will be administered by its courts. When a vessel sails away from that port, ard reaches the port of a third nation, the courts of this third nation can not substitute its own law for the establishment of the rights of the par- ties, which have already been fixed. It can only apply the laws of the coun- try where the accident happened. Nor would compensation Jaws of the coun- try owning the vessel defeat the gen- eral maritime law, which establishes a liability for tort against the vessel, if that is given by the law of the place where the negligence occurred.”—HANNA Nietsen, 267 Federal Reporter 729. ee oe Under act of June 23,1910, section 1, giving a lien to any person furnishing repairs, supplies, or other necessaries, including the use of drydock or marine railway, to a vessel, a maritime lien en- forceable by suit in rem, naval archi- tects employed by the owners of lake steamers to furnish plans and_ speci- fications for their alteration, so- as to fit them for ocean navigation and to superintend the making of such alter- ations did not have a lien, nor did the the contractor for the reconstruction of the vessels.—SUSQUEHANA, 267 Fed- eral Reporter 811. Se ee Where work of salving a lumber car- go was onerous in the extreme, the men having to work in water most of the time, and continued over a _ con- siderable time, with a number of ves- sels and their, crews engaged, the po- sition of the wrecked schooner being an exposed one, adding to the difficul- ties of the work of the men engaged in’ salving the cargo, an award of 75 per cent of the net proceeds of the salved property was proper—Bullard v. 230,263 Feet of Lumber, 267 Federal Reporter 860. :