Kimber, qui tam, Company v Blanchard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1770 |
| Date | 11 May 1770 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 368
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See 4 Durn. 417.
kimber, qcji tam, &c. versus blanchard. (S. C. 2 Bl. 690.) Friday llth May 1770. Masters of vessels cannot pilot their own ships up the Thames or Medway. [See 4 Durn. 417.] The question was, whether the defendant had incurred the penalty of 3 G. 1, c. 13, " for the Better Regulating of Pilots for Conducting of Ships and Vessels from Dover Deal, and the Isle of Thanet, up the Rivers of Thames and Medway," by piloting the vessel of which he himself was master. The first section of this Act recites "that there has been time out of mind, and now is, a very useful and well-regulated society or fellowship of pilots of the Trinity-House of Dover, Deal, and the Isle of Thanet, who have always had the sole piloting the load-manage of all ships and vessels from the said places, up the rivers of Thames and Medway ;" and that " by the usage and good rules and orders of the said society, * V. Rex v. Hebden, 2 Sir J. S. 1109. 5 BURR. 2803, KIMBER V. BLANCHARD 369 every person must appear at a court leet of load-manage, and be publicly examined by some of the elder and more experienced members of the said society and fellowship, touching his skill and abilities in pilotage, before he is to be admitted a member of the said society or fellowship, or ought to undertake the conducting and piloting any ship or vessel from the beforementionecl places up the said rivers ; whereby ignorant and dangerous persons have been prevented from undertaking such pilotage, and there hath been from time to time, a sufficient number of safe and able pilots for the said rivers maintained and kept up;" and also that " notwithstanding the many and great advantages of the said society or fellowship to the public, several unqualified persons have of late taken upon them the piloting and conducting ships or vessels by and from the places before mentioned, up the said rivers of Thames and Medway, who have not been admitted into the said society or fellowship, or undergone any examination of their abilities for such service ; whereby the said useful society or fellowship hath been much discouraged ; and several ships and vessels with their cargo and mariners have been lost or in the utmost danger and hazard : " for remedy whereof, it enacts that if any person or persons shall (after 1st August 1717) take upon him or themselves to conduct or pilot any ship or vessel by or from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v Daniel
...Buckley v. Newland (2 P. W. 182), and that wagers may be legal is evident from Hussey v. Crickett (3 Camp. 168), Lor-d March v. Pigot (5 Burr. 2602), Good v. Elliott (3 T. R. 693). It is submitted that the agreement is not put an end to by the correspondence. Both parties wish to relinquish......
-
Smith v Roberts
...in the 70th section is very general, and applies to "every person ;" and it includes the master. Kimber v. Blunchanl (-2 W. HI. 690; 5 Burr. 2602) was a- case under the 3 Geo. 1, c. Hi, s. 1, which enacted, that if any person or persons shall take upon himself or themselves to pilot any shi......
-
King, qui tam, against Smith
...stated in the case that he had no interest whatever in the proposals, he did not publish them for any of the purposes (a) 1 Burr. 497. (J) 5 Burr. 2602. 4T. R. 418. KING V. SMITH 1095 aforesaid ; which words are of the very essence of the crime. The plaintiffs argument is founded on a suppo......
-
Pierce v Hopper
...14, for their relief. (1) The penalties of this Act extend to the master of a ship piloting his own vessel, Kimber qui tarn v. Blanchard, 5 Burr. 2602. English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 503 COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER Pierce and ers. Hopper [249] pierce ver......