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 BARGE owner, as bailee of a car- Py: lost when the barge sank, was entitled to recover damages from the owner of a tug which collided with the barge, though title to the cargo was in the vendee, instead of the ven- dor who paid the loss. Hither the bailee or the bailor may maintain an action against a tort-feasor who in- jures the property while in the cus- tody of the bailee, and recover the full damages; but a recovery of dam- ages by one, and payment by the wrongdoer, will be a full satisfaction, and may be pleaded in bar at any subsequent suit by the other.—W. C. Brock, 5 Fed. Supp. 47. * HERE a charter party provided that the charterer should load, store, and trim cargo at its expense under the master’s supervision, and the vessel was loaded during the ab- sence of the master, for whom the mate was acting, the owner was liable to the charterer for the expense and loss due to delay necessitated by par- tial unloading and retrimming. The charterer was also entitled to off hire due to the partial unloading and re- trimming necessitated by the over- loading of the vessel under the mate’s direction.—Mobile, Miami & Gulf Steamship Co. v. Lake Giltedge Steamship Co., 68 F. (2d) 370. * * * NDER voyage rule, supplies taken U on board and repairs furnished before breaking ground, but in prepa- ration for the voyage, have an equality or parity with repairs or supplies at a port of call on the voyage.—Brim- STONE, 69 F. (2d) 106. * Ei HARTERS must be construed ac- C cording to the intent of the parties as manifested by the whole instrument rather than by the literal meaning of any particular clause taken by itself. Any exception in the charter in favor of the shipowner is to be most strong- ly construed against him, especially if it tends to weaken the warranty of sea- worthiness. A clause giving liberty to sail without pilots is entirely in- consistent with warranty of seaworthi- ness and the obligation to use due diligence to make the vessel _ sea- worthy if failure to employ a local pilot would render the vessel unsea- 20 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law worthy at the beginning of the voy- age. Where pilotage is customary at a port, a pilot is available, and the nature of the navigation requires one, it is a breach of the warranty of sea- worthiness if a pilot is not taken.— FRAMLINGTON Court, 69 F. (2d) 300. * * * cause the towing line broke, as frequently happens in heavy seas, was held insufficient, in the case of WEST HarsHAw, 69 F.. (2d) 521, to deprive the salvors of a fair award. In this case, it appeared that the salving ves- sel traveled 120 miles in reaching the disabled steamship, stood by during a hurricane for a night when the steam- ship was helpless and her lifeboats were gone, towed her 145 miles through high seas until she was able to repair her rudder chain and the winds and waters had quieted down, and convoyed her 74 miles, spending on the entire service one day and twenty-two hours. The value of the steamship was $200,000, and the value of her cargo was $300,000. A salvage award of $15,000, of which $6000 was Salvage attributable to the ship, was held proper. Ck of salvage services be- *z- R O HARTER party provisions should be construed most strongly against the party who prepared the contract. Interlineations in handwriting and typewriting must be considered as overruling any portions of the printed contract which are inconsistent with them. A provision that the ship should pay “cranage if shore cranes are em- ployed” required the ship to pay rea- sonable and customary charge for Shore cranage services even where cranes used belonged to the charterer, not only where the charterer was required to pay others for cranage services—Aucust, 5 Fed. Supp. 463. * * & SHIP is not an insurer of its appliances, nor of the invitees who may operate the gear. It is bound, however, to furnish suitable tackle and machinery, reasonably safe and strong for the work at hand. A se- cret defect in such gear, even though effecting casualty, will not fasten re- sponsibility upon the vessel or her owners. If by due care, however, its MARINE REVIEwW—July, 1934 Specially Compiled for Marine Review officers or crew knew, or might have known, that any weakness existed, it is held to strict liability. In such mat- ters the officers and crew are bound to use ordinary care. But this stand- ard implies the exercise of vigilance proportioned to the dangers reason- ably to be anticipated in the light of common experience and _ prudence. Since any break in the overhead tackle is fraught with possibility of serious casualty, the highest degree of care in this respect is required.— Mercier, 5 Fed. Supp. 511. * ok ok O CONSTITUTE corporal punish- ment within the federal statute forbidding flogging or corporal punish- ment on vessels, it must be done by virtue of an authority to which the person punished was subject. When a ship’s fourth officer departed from his duty as an officer of the vessel and inflicted bodily harm upon a saloon watchman solely because of a purely personal motive, it cannot be said that such action comes within the meaning of the statute; hence, recovery of dam- ages against the shipowner was prop- erly denied—Fowler v. American Mail line, 69 F. (2d) 905. e FR N THE case of SACHEM, 5 Fed. Supp. 417, it appeared that the stairway from the upper to the main deck of a fishing boat was constructed in the customary and usual manner, and, while steep, was entirely safe for use. While descending the stairway, libel- ant, a woman of 54, five feet five inches in height and weighing 167 pounds, fell. The court held that the libelant solely at fault in descending the stairway in wearing shoes with heels three or four inches high. N ORDER to recover the statutory | penalty for refusing to pay a Ssea- man’s wages, it is not enough to prove that the captain was wrong; it must also be shown that he acted arbi- trarily and without reasonable cause. A seaman leaving his ship before com- pletion of the voyage was held, in the case of Gold v. Matson Navigation Co., 5 Fed. Supp. 971, entitled to a decree for wages earned, though not for the statutory penalty for refusal to pay wages.