HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0198 and id is 1 raw text is: REG. V. JOZE ALVES DIAS [1847, 1849]
was clearly not the course to the Downs, whither they were told the ship was to be
carried. But further, it is expressly alleged in the pleadings by the Respondents,
and not denied by the Appellants, that William Wells, not long before the ship
was towed ashore on the Sandwich Flats, told the master of the Copeland that he
was steering too much to the westward, but that the said master refused to alter his
course. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, in their arguments at the
Bar, relied upon the doctrine that the ship being under the care of a licensed pilot,
the master of the tug had nothing whatever to do with her direction, beyond keeping
her masts always in a line with her own. Looking to the state of the wind and
weather, there seems not to be the smallest doubt that, by a reasonable exertion of
care and skill on the part of the tug, the ship might easily have been brought to
[101] a place of safety in the Downs, and enabled to pursue her voyage to the West
Indies, instead of being again stranded, and obliged to be brought back to port to refit.
There has, therefore, been no meritorious service in respect of which salvage ought
to be decreed.
An attempt was made to separate the towing of the ship from the operation of
getting her off from the Goodwin Sands; but their Lordships are of opinion that they
cannot be severed; that there was no fresh engagement, and that the whole forms
one transaction of salvage. When the ship had been got off, there was reason to
apprehend that her rudder had been injured, and without forfeiting right to salvage
the tug could not then have deserted her. The claimants, in their pleadings, describe
the whole of their services as of the same character, and claim extraordinary re-
muneration for the whole, on the principle of salvage.
Their Lordships will, therefore, advise Her Majesty, that the Decree appealed
against, should be affirmed with costs, to be paid by the Appellants.
[Mews' Dig. tit. SHIPPING; A. XVIII. SALVAGE; 4. Misconduct or Want of Skill;
XX. COLLISION; 10. Compulsory Pilotage; e. Duties of Shipowner, Master, and
Crew. S.C. 10 Jur. 863; 5 N. and C. 470; 2 Rob. W. 470; 4 N. of C. 575. On point
as to effect of negligence of salvors (6 Moo. P.C. 100), followed in The Yaw-Yean,
1883, 8 P.D. 150; and see s. 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58
Vict. c. 60); Hammond v. Rogers, 1850, 7 Moo. P.C. 160.]
[102] ON APPEAL FROM THE VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT OF SAINT HELENA.
OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN,-Appellant; JOZE ALVES DIAS,-
Respondent * [Feb. 19, 1847, and June 22, 1849].
The AQUILA.
By the 35th section of the rules respecting appeals from the Vice-Admiralty
Courts abroad, made under the authority of the Statute, 2nd and 3rd Will.
IV., c. 51, all appeals are to be asserted within fifteen days after the date of the
Decree appealed from. In March, 1846, a Decree was pronounced by the
Vice-Admiralty Court at Saint Helena, restoring a vessel seized by a British
cruiser for an alleged infraction of the Slave Trade Act [5 Geo. IV. c. 113],
and referring the amount of costs and damages to the Registrar. No appeal
was asserted by the seizor's Proctor, who attended before the Registrar under
the Decree. In the month of December of that year, a petition of appeal was
brought in by the Queen's Proctor, on behalf of the seizor, which the Registrar
(in consequence of the appeal not having been asserted within fifteen days)
refused to receive. On an application made ex parte, supported by affidavits
stating that it was the seizor's Proctor's ignorance of the rule for asserting
the appeal, which alone prevented him from appealing, leave was given 6b
appeal, subject to a counter-petition being presented by the Respondent to
Present: Lord Brougham, Lord Langdale, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and
the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh.
VI MOORE, 101](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0198&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)