The "Ranger" and the "Cologne."
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1872 |
| Date | 05 December 1872 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 546
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
Mews' Dig. tit. Shipping, A. XX. Collision, 11. The Regulations, b. Cases on the Regulations-Art. 19. 12. Local Rules, d. The Thames, 13. Jurisdiction and Practice, f. Pleadings. S.C. L.R. 4 P.C. 519; 27 L.T. 769; 21 W.R. 273; 1 Asp. 484. See The Oceano, 1878, 3 P.D. 64, and note to The Velocity, 1869, 6 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 273. By s. 18 of the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. c. 66) and s. 4 (3) of the Judicature Act, 1891 (54 and 55 Vict. c. 53). The Jurisdiction of the Privy Council upon any judgment or order of the High Court of Admiralty was, except as to Prize, transferred to the Court of Appeal.
[352] ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY. MALCOMSON- Appellant; THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY,- Respondents * [Dec. 4, 5, 1872]. the " ranger " and the " cologne." It is the general practice for Steam Vessels going down the River Thames to keep on the north side. If, therefore, a Vessel rounding a bend on the north side, under a port helm, on her way up the River, sees the red light of one rounding the same bend on her way down, over her starboard bow, and nearer the north * Present:-Sir James William Colvile, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague Edward Smith, and Sir Robert Porrett Collier. 546 MALCOMSON V. G. S. N. CO.-KANGER (THE) [1872] IX MOORE N.S., 363 side than she is herself, she is not justified in supposing that the Vessel coming down will cross her north, and pass her ji her port side. Vessels, under these circumstances, are not crossing Vessels within the meaning of the 14th article of the Steering and Sailing Eules. The rule laid down in The Velocity (6 Moore's P.O. Cases (N.S.), 263; S.C. Law Rep. 3 P.O. 44) followed. This was an appeal and cross appeal from a Decree of the High Court of Admiralty pronounced in a cause of damage instituted by the General Steam Navigation Company, the Owners of the Steam-vessel Cologne, against the Steam-vessel Banger, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against the Owners of the Eanger intervening. The Cologne was a paddle-wheel Steam-vessel of 324 tons register, and the Banger was a screw Steam-vessel of 308 tons register. The collision took place in Greenwich Reach, in the River Thames, on [353] the 5th of January, 1871, a little before midnight. The Cologne was steaming down and the Ranger was steaming up the river. The case set up on behalf of the Cologne was, that she was rounding the Isle of Dogs under a starboard helm and keeping over to the north side of the river, but, as the Witnesses for her stated, being a little north of mid-channel, when the Eanger, with her green light open, was seen at a distance of about from one-half to three-quarters of a mile from the Cologne, and slightly on her starboard bow. The Cologne alleged that the Banger was considerably further over to the south side of the river than the Cologne, and that the Cologne was kept under a starboard helm, but the Ranger, instead of passing to the southward of the Cologne, improperly ported her helm, and so caused the collision. The case of the Ranger was, that she was proceeding up Greenwich Reach upon the north shore, when the Cologne was seen a little on the starboard bow of the Banger, at a distance of about three-quarters of a mile, exhibiting her masthead and port lights only, to those on board the Ranger, and that the Cologne was proceeding in a direction to pass the Banger upon her port side. The Banger was kept on her course along the north shore, and the Cologne kept on as if intending to pass the Ranger upon her port side until she had neared the Ranger, and then suddenly altered her course under a starboard helm, and so caused the collision. At the hearing, the evidence, as the Appellants contended, failed to support the case of the Cologne, [354] and fully supported the case put forward on behalf of the Ranger; but the Judge of the Court below (The Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore) found that both Vessels were to blame for the collision, and pronounced accordingly. The Court was assisted by two of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, who differed in opinion, and one of them did not concur in the judgment. Both parties appealed from this judgment. Mr. Milward, Q.C., and Mr. Gainsford Bruce, for the Owners of the Eanger referred to The Velocity (6 Moore's P.C. Cases (N.S.), 263; S.C. Law Rep. 3 P.C. 44), and The Esk and Niord (7 Moore's P.C. Cases (N.S.), 276 ; S.C. Law Rep. 3 P.C. 436). Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. E. C. Clarkson, for the Owners of the Cologne, cited, in respect to the pleadings, the rule, secundum allegata et probata, as laid down in The Alice and, The Bosita (5 Moore's P.C. Cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
"Normandie" (Owners of SS.) v "Pekin" (Owners of SS.). The "Pekin"
...Owners of The British Steamship Pekin The VelocityUNK 21 L. T. Rep. 686 L. Rep. 3 P. C. 44 The RangerDID=ASPMUNK 27 L. T. Rep. 769 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 484 L. Rep. 4 P.C. 519 The Oceano 3 Prob. Div. 60 The LeveringtonDID=ASPM 55 L. T. Rep. 386 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 7 11 Prob. Div. 117 Rules ......
-
The Winstanley
...The HarvestDID=ASPM 55 L. T. Rep. 202 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 5 11 P. Div. 90 The Ranger; The CologneDID=ASPMUNK 27, L. T. Rep. 769 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 484 L. Rep. 4 P. C. 519 Bye-laws of the Port or Harbour of Newport, 1894, arts. 12 and 13 Order In Council Consolidating Orders In Council Ma......