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

“a - A el HE liability of a steamship company for loss of baggage was in issue in case of CeLtic, 224 Federal Re- porter 216, where it was held that the fact that a purchaser of a steamship-ticket ac- cepted it without reading it, or familiar- izing himself with its provisions, does not enlarge his rights thereunder. He is held to the terms of the contract which he accepted, so far as those terms are not invalid as against public policy. The court held also that a provision in the ticket, which included two or more passengers, limiting the liability in case of loss of baggage to $100, unless a higher value was declared and additional ‘payments made, was reasonable and valid, and did not limit the entire lia- bility to $100, but meant that the lia- bility to each of such passengers should not exceed $100. In this connection the court said, ‘There is a well-recog- nized distinction between mere _ notices by the carrier, printed upon the ticket or otherwise given to the passenger, that the carrier will not be liable be- yond a certain amount, and provisions to that effect in the contract of carriage itself. The former are not valid unless distinctly brought. home to, and accepted by, the passenger; the latter, entering into and forming part of the contract, are necessarily accepted with the ticket, unless repugnant to public policy.” el A vessel anchored in a_ harbor outside the limits prescribed by law- ful authority, was declared in the case of Vera, 224 Federal Reporter 998, to be chargeable with a statutory fault, and in case of collision between other vessels has the burden of showing that her being where she was, could not have contributed thereto. x * x Under a charter party requiring dis- charge of a cargo of lumber at the rate of 35,000 feet per day, without any ex- ception, Sundays are to be excluded from the lay days allowed, but included in the time for which demurrage may be claimed after the lay days have ex- pired—Wallace vs. Cargo, 224 Federal Reporter 993. * x The lien of one furnishing supplies to a vessel at the request of its owner or master does not, after destruction of the vessel by fire, it was decided: in A. M. Bright Grocery Co. vs. Lindsey, 225 Federal Reporter 257, attach to the in- surance money, as such money is the proceeds of a collateral personal con- tract between the owner and the insurer and not of an interest in the vessel. *k Ok Ox The owner of a vessel sunk in the Hudson river applying for and _ se- curing the services of the lighthouse de- partment to mark.the place of the wreck could not be held responsible for the Ce E Legal Tips For Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for The Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law XUtVtVTCtt«tE#=TZiiiiiiviiiittiitttitittiiiiiKiiKit\iiKisKiHiiKiXitKitittTiKiHHHnTHHKHTHKKKKNKHKIKIRRMRR result of misplacing a buoy by the de- partment, which it had no authority to move, it was observed in Plymouth, 225 Federal Reporter 483, even though it paid the department | for the service. A steamship company receiving goods from a railroad company on a through bill of lading providing for transporta- tion by rail and water from Mexico to New York, and paying all prior charges, has a maritime lien for the freight and charges paid, according to the decision in New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co. vs. Maldonado & Co, 225 Federal Reporter 353, notwithstanding delivery to the consignee upon his credit or his bond. * * * “Vessels in motion are required to keep out of the: way of a vessel at anchor, if the latter is without fault, unless it appear that the collision was the result of the inevitable accident; the rule being that the vessel in motion must exonerate herself from blame by showing that it was not in her power to prevent the collision by adopting any practical precautions.’ — BANNER, 225 Federal Reporter 433. Pe Otympic, 224 Federal Reporter 436, decided the point that a tug engaged with others in assisting a large steam- ship to dock, which took a position alongside near the stern, can not recover from the steamship for injuries caused by being drawn by suction within reach of the propeller and hit, as the steam- ship was to be expected to use her pro- pellers whenever necessary to aid the work of the tugs, that being customary, but assumed the risk of the position it took. x ok A car float attached to the south side of Pier 7 in East river, near the end of the pier, and swinging out into the river beyond the end of the pier, was held, in ALLEMANNIA, 224 Federal Re- porter 633, to be tied to the “exterior end” of such pier, within Greater New York Charter, providing that it shall not be lawful for any vessel to obstruct the waters of the harbor by lying at the exterior end of wharves in the North or East rivers, except at their own risk of injury from vessels enter- ing or leaving any adjacent dock or pier. ae The schooner E. Starr JONES was held liable, in the case reported in 224 Federal Reporter 391, for collision with a crossing steamship for carrying her side lights in such position that the one on the side next the steamship was obscured by the sails. The court said: “While the law does not regulate just where the side lights on a sailing ves- sel shall be placed, it does require that the starboard light shall be so located 447 as to show from a point straight ahead to two points abaft the beam on the starboard side, and the port light shall show a similar arc of the circle on the port side.” | * * x “A vessel, to be seaworthy”, said the court in JEANNIE, 225 Federal Reporter 178, “must be tight, staunch, strong, well furnished, manned, and victualed, and in all respects equipped in the usual man- ner for the merchandise service in such trade. It must be fit and competent to carry the particular cargo which it en- gages to carry, and able to-resist all ordinary action of the sea in the par- ticular zone of sea which it engages to sail.” It was held in that case that a ship orally engaging before sailing to bring a cargo on her return voyage could not limit her liability by bills of lading delivered after loading to em- ployes of the shipper having no au- thority to represent it. ee Act of congress June 29, 1888 as amended by the act of Aug. 18, 1894, prohibiting the dumping of refuse in the tidal waters of the harbor of New York within the limits prescribed by the supervisor of the harbor, was_ held valid in United States vs. Various Tugs and Scows, 225 Federal Reporter 505, both under the police power and under admiralty jurisdiction, even though the limits prescribed by the supervisor are beyond a marine league from the shore. The court said: “Any other interpreta- tion of the national power would render the government impotent to protect the harbors and adjacent channels and waters, which it dredges at great ex- pense, from dumping by the vessels, which are only enabled safely to navi- gate by reason of this governmental aid.” The steam lighter MorGAn, passing down the Hudson river, overtaking and desiring to pass to starboard of the ferry boat NEw BRUNSWICK, gave a one- blast signal, but was answered with two blasts. She persisted however, and about the same time New Brunswick changed her course to cross ahead of MorGan, which then went to starboard and collided with the tug BusH, also passing down. Both the lighter and the ferry boat were held in fault for vio- lating rule 8 of the Inland Navigation Rules, providing that “under no -cir- cumstances shall the vessel astern attempt to pass the vessel ahead until said vessel ahead shall signify her will- ingness by blowing the proper signals,” and that “the vessel ahead shall in no case attempt to cross the bow or crowd upon the course of the passing vessel.” —New Brunswick, 225 Federal Re- porter 34.