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/ssactsengr0458 and id is 1 raw text is: THE SERINGAPATAM
an abandonment of the voyage for which he was engaged, but that his agreement
with the owners was in the [38] nature of a special contract. This, I apprehend,
as far as this Court is concerned, is a fatal objection. I cannot find any authority
that would authorise me to interfere, neither do I see in what way I could proceed
to determine what is the amount of the indemnification to which the mariner is
entitled for a breach of the contract. The matter in issue, it appears to me, lies
entirely and exclusively within the province of a jury, whose functions I should
usurp in adjudicating upon it. I must, therefore, reject this summary petition.
SERINGAPATAM. April 28, 1848.-The owners of a foreign vessel which was
run down by a British ship brought an action for damages in the Admiralty
Court, and a cross-action was also entered against the foreigners by the British
owners. The foreign owners being resident abroad, and declining to give an
appearance in the cross-action, the cross-action was discontinued, and the
cause Was heard upon the original action alone. The Trinity Masters being
of opinion that both vessels were in fault, the Court decreed the damage to be
equally divided between them. This sentence was appealed and affirmed by
the Privy Council, and the cause was remitted. A motion was now made on
behalf of the British owners that the registrar and merchants should be directed
to ascertain the amount of the damage sustained by the British ship, and deduct
a moiety of that damage from the compensation awarded to the foreign owners.
The Court rejected the motion, but withheld the payment of the sum claimed
by the foreign owner until he consented to a deduction of a moiety of the damage
sustained by the British ship.
[S. C. 6 Notes of Cas. 165 ; 12 Jur. 381. Adopted, Chapman v. Royal Netherlands
Steam Navigation Co., 1879, 4 P.D. 177: Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland
v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 1882, 7 A. C. 806. See Imperial
Japanese Government v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., [1895]
A. C. 644.]
Motion.
This was a cause of collision promoted against this vessel by the owners, master
and crew, and the consignees of the cargo laden on board the Danish barge the
Harriet.
The case was argued upon the merits before Trinity Masters upon the 27th
November 1847 (vide 2 W. Rob. 506), and the Trinity Masters being of opinion that
both vessels were to blame, the Court pronounced that the damage should be equally
borne by both parties. This sentence was appealed to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council by the owners of the Seringapatam, and the sentence of the
Court below was affirmed and the cause remitted.
A motion was now made on behalf of the owners of the Seringapatam praying
that the Court, in estimating the amount of compensation due to the owners of
the Harriet, would direct the registrar and merchants to ascertain and deduct
therefrom a moiety [39] of the damage sustained by the Seringapatam. The
motion was opposed on behalf of the owners of the Harriet by-
The Queen's Advocate and Robinson, who submitted that at the time of the
decision both in this Court and in the Privy Council, no question was mooted with
respect to the damage sustained by the Seringapatam. The owners of that
vessel were merely defendants, and no prayer for compensation was made on their
behalf ; that although in the earlier stages of the proceedings in this Court a cross-
action had been entered by the owners of the Seringapatam, such cross-action
was subsequently abandoned upon the rejection of their motion to stay the proceed-
ings until the owners of the Harriet should give bail to answer that action. The
only question, therefore, before this Court and the Privy Council was what was the
amount of compensation which the owners of the Harriet were entitled to receive ?
The sentence of this Court, as entered by the registrar, was in these words :- The
Judge, by interlocutory decree, pronounced that the collision was occasioned by
the default of the master and the crew of the ' Harriet,' and the officers and crew
of the ' Seringapatam,' and that the damage arising therefrom ought to be borne
equally by the owners of both vessels ; and the Court then proceeded to pronounce
'for a moiety only of the damage proceeded for in this cause,' and condemned the
owners of the ' Seringapatam,' and the bail given-in their behalf, in the said moiety
3 W. ROB. 38.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0458&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)