The Earl of Dumfries
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1885 |
| Date | 15 January 1885 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Butt, J.
The Earl of Dumfries
Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 285.
Collision Practice Evidence
342 MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE EARL. OF DUMFRIES. [ADM. Tuesday, Jan, 15,1885. (Before BUTT, J.) THE EARL OF DUMFRIES, (a) Collission-Practice-Evidence-Engineermt Shipping Act 185* (17 & 18 Viet, c, 104).c. 285. In a damage actionthefopt by the engineer is admissibe at evidence against his owners. THIS was ft damage action in rem arising out of a collision between the steamships the Boskenna Bay and the Earl of Dumfries, During the defendant' case, counsel for the plaintiffs while cross-examining the second engineer of the defendant' ship, proposed to pot in evidence the log kept by the Bret engineer of the defendant' ship for the purpose of contradicting the evidence of tan witness. Counsel for the defendants objected to tits admission of each evidence. Dr. Phillimore (with him Bucknill), for the plaintiff, in support of the admission of the evi-enee. - Tho declarations of an agent are admissible sible evidence against his principal; The?? 1 Spinka Ece. & Ad. 176. The engineer is the agent of the defendants for the purpose of making entries in his log. A protest is admissible evidence. [Butt, J - I am not so sore of that, although I know that by the fraction of this court it is very often put in.] he log kept by the mate of the defendants' ship is admissible evidence against them. By parity of reasoning the engineers lag is also admissible. Hall, Q.C. (with him Kennedy), for the defendants, contra. - The engineers log is very different to the official log, which was specifically directed to be received in evidence by sect. 385 of the Merchant Shipping Act 18M.(&) There is no legal duty upon the engineer to keep a log, and the entries should not be admitted as evidencee against his owners. BUTT, J. - This is a point upon which X have considerable doubt. It is clear that this engineer's has been commenced in the High Court of Justice on behalf of Robert Dickson and others against the ??. teg owners of the steamship Robert Dickson and againi names of intervenr intervening.. Now there-. for we(names of surities) hereby jointly and severally submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the said court, and consent that they, the said remaining owners of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Ship "Peterborough" v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada,
...to anchor just off pier, lights of ship out and oil pump broken 8.30 p.m.—Repairs done started to away anchor (1) (1885) 10 P.D. 31. Ex. C.R.] EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 469 The entry that the oil pump was broken is in direct 1952 contradiction to that of Marco......
-
The "Andrew Kelly" v. The "Commodore.",
...L.E. 90, 26 Hais. 82; illarsden's Digest, 850. on Shipping, 5th ed. (1911), 211. ' 4 (1866), L.R. 1 P.C. 378. . 5 (1878), 3 P.D. 156. 6 (1885), 10 P.D. 31. 2 3 - 76 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIX. 1919 Dig., supra. In the ship's log in question, entitled "Pilot House Log Book", kept by ......