The "Juliana"-(T Cleghorn, Master)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1855 |
| Date | 22 December 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 166 E.R. 996
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND
[20] the " juliana "-(T. Cleghorn, Master). December 22, 1855.-Collision- non-exhibition of light at night-Lapse of time in bringing action.-A fishing sloop was run down at night about ten miles off the Eddystone light, and sunk ; held, that she could not recover in an action for damage, for she saw the other vessel at some distance, but shewed no light herself, as directed by the Admiralty regulations (a), issued in pursuance of the 295th section of Merchant Shipping Act; the opinion of the Court being that if she had shewn a light the collision would not have taken place. This was a suit promoted by the trawl sloop " Fear-not " against the barque " Juliana," to recover for a total loss occasioned by a collision between them, at 9 p.m. on the 24th of November 1854, about ten miles from the Eddystone lighthouse. The sloop was proceeding to her fishing-ground close hauled on the starboard tack, when she observed the barque, according to her account, distant about half a mile, steering down Channel free before the wind. The barque, according to the sloop's statement, altered her helm three times, and finally ran into her, in consequence of which she speedily sank, the crew being saved by boarding the barque. The baique, of the burden of 246 tons, bound from London to Dominique, denied that she had ao altered her helm, and attributed the accident to the sloop not exhibiting a light. The Court was assisted by Captains Farrer and Owen. Bobinson and Bayford appeared for the sloop. Addams and Twiss for the barque. Dr. Lythi,ngton, without hearing counsel for the " Juliana," or formally summing up tie case to the elder brethren, said :-We are of opinion that it is impossible that this action can be maintained against the " Juliana " under the circumstances which aie stated in this evidence ; and, without any reference at all to the testimony of the witnesses who have been examined on the part of the " Juliana," let us consider for a moment what is the evidence given and the statements made on behalf of the " Fear-not," the vessel which was unfortunately destroyed. According to their statement it was a clear and starlight night. Now the representations with respect to the weather made on the one side and on the other generally require to be taken with some deductions ; [21] but, for the purpose of the present argument, I will presume it to be a clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pringle v The Queen
...readings on the D1S80 test: Donald Davidson's blood sample – 29, 34; the appellant's blood sample – 20, 21; the male fraction on the swab- 20, 21. Dr Cruickshank said that she had no evidence, based on these results, of the presence of any body fluid from Donald Davidson in the deceased's v......
-
Anthony Peter Davidison (as liquidator of Finnan Developments (Raynes Park) LLP) v Sean Patrick Finnan
...no. 0C335253). It was incorporated for the purpose of acquiring and developing a freehold site at 213 Worple Road, Raynes Park, London, SW20 8QY (“the Property”). The Property was purchased on 28 March 2008 for £2.42m, with the benefit of a loan from Investec Bank Plc of £2.5m and loan capi......
-
Wimbledon Construction v Vago
...Claimant, Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Limited, to carry out extension and refurbishment works at his house at 51, Drax Avenue, London, SW20. The contract sum was £209,94Disputes arose between the parties and, on the 17 th January 2005, the Claimant commenced an adjudication pursuant......
-
Lily Property Nominees Ltd v William George Stonebridge
...Deed is entered into in order to give effect to the agreed scheme for the management maintenance and repair of Prospect Place Wimbledon London SW20 and ancillary motorised gates and lighting and adjoining landscaped areas”. 13 Clause 1 defines Prospect Place to mean “the private road thus n......