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

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers _ Specially Compiled for Marine Review HERE is nothing in common be- tween the national prohibition act and the navigation laws, and a vessel that engages in an unlawful trade con- trary to the terms of her license need not necessarily be proceeded against under the national prohibition act be- eause of the fact that the contraband cargo she carries is liquor. She may have violated both the national pro- hibition act and the navigation act at the same time. Being licensed to en- gage in fishing only and being found engaged in another and an _ illegal trade, she became subject to forfeiture _for violation of the terms of her license under section 4377 of the revised Stat- utes, it was said in the case of Pinot, 43 F. (2d) 491. Innocence of the own- er is not a defense to forfeitures in rem incurred under the customs and navigation laws, the court proceeded, and there is no disagreement among the courts on this proposition, the law being definitely settled. * * bo OTH steamer and tow have a right to navigate the river, declared the court in the case of J. C. Hart, 43 F. (2d) 566; it being the duty of the tow to meet the ordinary risks of naviga- tion and of the steamer not to injure a tow so constituted by her swells. It cannot be expected that vessels will so manage their work, as to receive ex- traordinary swells without harm. The vessel making such swells is respon- sible for their effects upon innocent vessels. % * * HE duty exists to avoid making up a tow in such a manner as to invite possible injury from ordinary and rea- sonably to be expected swells in a busy place like New York harbor. In other words, said the court in the case of Favorta, 43 F. (2d) 569, barges towed in New York harbor, with its large and small steamers, its ferryboats, and gen- eral traffic, must expect to meet swells and other ordinary and reasonable dis- turbance of the water, and no liability exists for damage done from such causes, unless, by a fair preponderance of evidence, the damage is shown to have been proximately caused by negli- gence of those operating the vessel. % * * HE terms of a bill of lading are to be construed strictly against the carrier, and this rule of strict inter- pretation applies with equal force to any language purporting to grant a liberty to deviate from the customary course.—PELOTAS, 43 F. (2d) 571. *# *# % VERY bill of lading in default of special provision contains an im- plied warranty that the voyage will be prosecuted without unnecessary de- 64 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law lay of deviation, and that if the vessel does unjustifiedly deviate from her di- rect course the carrier from that mo- ment on becomes the insurer of the goods and it becomes immaterial how damages are occasioned.—PELOTAS, 43 Be (2d). 614, * 6% F A clean bill of lading is given for cargo known to be in poor condi- tion, whether it is negotiable or not is immaterial as regards the shipown- er’s liability. “For what difference can it make,” asked the court in the case of Carso, 43 F. (2d) 736, “wheth- er the steamship owner issues a docu- ment which it may reasonably expect will be acted on to his detriment by a particular man or by many men—by a man whose name it knows or by men whose names it knows not?” The real question, the court said, is whether the consignee of a straight bill of lad- ing or the indorsee of a negotiable bill of lading knows, when he pays his money or pledges his credit, that the representation as to the condition -of the goods by the shipowner is false. If he does not know of the misrepre- sentation, the shipowner must stand by his statement of condition. When a shipowner in a foreign port issues to a shipper a bill of lading in which the condition of the goods is falsely described there always arises a sus- picion of connivance, but whether there be connivance or not does not matter. A bill of lading is a document of dig- nity, and the court should do every: thing in their power to preserve its integrity in international trade for there, especially, confidence is of the essence. * % oh pera ee does not pre- clude a shipowner from invoking a clause in the bill of lading limiting | time for prosecution of claim.—Lager- loef Trading Co. v. United States, 43 I. (20) 871. % oh % CONTRACT of sale of a steamer, referring to the sale as a “ce. i. f.” sales, means a sale free of cost, insur- ance, and freight, that is, that the price fixed covered not only the cost of the cargo, but also insurance and freight. —Krowler vy. Delaware River Steel Co., 43 F. (2d) 476. *& * # eS THE case of United States v. Delaware Bay and River Pilots’ as- sociation, 44 F. (2d) 1, it appeared that the deck officer of a pilot boat left the pilot house with only a wheelsman and an apprentice on the lookout deck, and went to the lower deck into the lighted cabin to arouse a pilot to board an incoming vessel, at a time when the lights of an ap- MARINE REvVIEw—August, 1931 __—_—————_____} proaching vessel were in view. Being the officer in charge of the deck, said the court, the duty rested on such officer, as the lights of the approach- ing vessel were in view, not only not to leave the pilot house, but to watch his compass, noticing the bearing of the approaching vessel and keeping under constant observance the lights of that vessel. * % ECTION 43877 of the revised sta- tutes of the United States, provid- ing for the forfeiture of a vessel which engages in trade other than that for which she was licensed, was under consideration in the case of CHIQuUITA, 44 F. (2d) 302, and the court held that it would certainly be giving a liberal construction to such section to hold that carrying a few lobsters on a plea- sure yacht, for the use of the crew, on a single occasion, without hire, constitutes engaging in trade within the meaning of the section. ke % bo N HOLDING a steamship at fault for failure to stop and give a tug a chance to get its tow around the river bend at Hell Gate in the East river, the court, in the case of Ceres, 44 F. (2d) 377, observed: “The navigators of both vessels were most experienced and have spent most of their water life in passing back and forth through Hell Gate. If any one is able to fore- see its eccentricities, it is such men as they were. But it must be remembered that familiarity often breeds disregard of precautions which would be ob- served by those who are less experi- enced.” EY HE obligation imposed by the star board hand rule upon the privileg- ed vessel in thus stated: The prefer- red steamer will not be held in fault for maintaining her course and speed, so long as it is possible for the other to avoid her by porting; at least in the absence of some distinct indication that she is about to fail in her duty. If the master of the preferred steamer were at liberty to speculate upon the possibility, or even the probability, of the approaching steamer failing to do her duty and keep out of his way, the certainty that the former will hold his course, upon which the latter has a right to rely, and which it is the very object of the rule to insure, would give place to doubts on the part of the master of the obligated steamer as to whether he would do so or not, and produce a timidity and feebleness of action on the part of both, which would bring about more collisions than it would prevent.—Crry or CAmM- DEN, 44 F.- (2d) 711.