4. Such further or other relief as the nature of the

require.

case may

1. The defendants are the owners of the Swedish barque Atlantic, of 988 tons register, carrying a crew of nineteen hands all told, and at the time of the circumstances hereinafter stated bound on a voyage to Cardiff.

2. A little before 6:30 P.M. of the 31st January, 1900, the Atlantic was about 15 miles S.E. by S. of the Lizard. The wind was E.N.E. The weather was hazy. The Atlantic, under foresail, fore and main topsails, main topgallant sail, and jib, was heading about W.S.W., making from 5 to 6 knots an hour with her regulation light duly exhibited and burning, and a good look-out being kept on board her.

3. In these circumstances, the red lights of two vessels were observed pretty close together, about half-mile off, and from two to three points on the starboard bow. The helm of the Atlantic was put to port in order to pass on the port sides of these vessels. One, however, of the vessels, which was the Anthes, altered her course, and exhibited her green light, and caused danger of collision. The helin of the Atlantic was then ordered to be steadied, but before this order could be completed was put hard-a-port. The Anthes, with her starboard side by the main rigging, struck the stem of the Atlantic and shortly afterwards sank, her master and four of her crew being saved by the Atlantic.

4. Save as is herein before admitted, the several statements in the Petition are denied.

5. The Anthes was not kept on her course as required by law.

6. The helm of the Anthes was improperly starboarded.

7. The collision was caused by one or both of the things stated in the fifth and sixth paragraphs hereof, or otherwise by the negligence of the plaintiffs, or of those on board the Anthes.

8. The collision was not caused or contributed to by the defendants, or by any of those on board the Atlantic.

And by way of counter-claim, the defendants say-

They have suffered great damage by reason from the collision.

And they claim as follows:

1. Judgment against the plaintiff [and his bail] for the damage occasioned to the defendants by the collision, and for the costs of this

action.

2. To have an account taken of such damage with the assistance of merchants.

3. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require.

The plaintiff denies the several statements contained in the answer and counter-claim [or admits the several statements contained in paragraphs

and

of the answer and counter-claim, but denies the other state

ments contained therein].

1. At about 2 A.M. on the 4th day of September, 1900, the steam-ship Sarpedon, of 1,556 tons register, and 225 horse-power, of which the plaintiff's were the owners, whilst on a voyage from Shanghai and other ports to London, with a cargo of tea and other goods, was about 80 miles south-west of Ushant.

2. The wind at such time was about south-west, the weather was a little hazy and occasionally slightly thick, and the Sarpedon was under steam and sail, steering north-east, and proceeding at the rate of about 10 knots per hour. Her proper regulation masthead and sidelights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept.

3. At such time the masthead and red lights of a steam-vessel, which proved to be the above-named vessel, Julia David, was seen at the distance of about 2 miles from and ahead of the Sarpedon, but a little on her port bow. The helm of the Sarpedon was ported and hard-a-ported, but the Julia David opened her green light to the Sarpedon, and although the engines of the Sarpedon were immediately stopped, and her steam-whistle was blown, the Julia David with her stem struck the Sarpedon on her port side, abreast of her red light, and did her so much damage that her master and crew were compelled to abandon her, and she was lost with her cargo. The Julia David went away without rendering assistance to those on board the Sarpedon, and without answering signals which were made by them for assistance.

4. Those on board the Julia David neglected to keep a proper look-out. 5. Those on board the Julia Darid neglected to duly port the helm of the Julia David.

6. The helm of the Julia David was improperly starboarded.

7. The Julia David did not duly observe and comply with the provisions of Article 16 of " The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea."

8. The said collision was occasioned by the improper and negligent navigation of the Julia David.

The plaintiffs claim

1. A declaration that they are entitled to the damage proceeded for, and the condemnation of the said steam-ship Julia David, and the defendants therein, and in costs.

2. To have an account taken of such damage with the assistance of merchants.

3. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require. Dated the

day of

19

Defence and Counter-claim.

[Title of Action.]

1. The defendants are the owners of the Belgian screw steam-ship Julia David, of about 1,274 tons register, and worked by engines of 140 horse-power nominal, with a crew of thirty hands, which left Havre on the 2nd September, 1900, with a general cargo, bound to Alicante and other ports in the Mediterranean.

2. About 2:45 A.M. of the 4th September, 1900, the Julia David in the course of her said voyage, was in the Bay of Biscay. The weather was thick with a drizzling rain, and banks of fog and a stiff breeze, blowing from S.S.W., with a good deal of sea. The Julia David, under steam alone, was steering S.S.W. W. by bridge-steering compass, or S. W. W. magnetic, and was making about 5 knots an hour. Her regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept on board her.

3. In the circumstances aforesaid those on board the Julia Darid saw the green and masthead lights of a steam-ship, the Sarpedon, about 2 miles off, and about two points on the starboard bow. The Julia David was kept on her course. But after a short time the Sarpedon opened her red light and caused danger of collision. The helm of the Julia David was thereupon put hard a-port, and her engines stopped and almost immediately reversed full speed, but, nevertheless, the Sarpedon came into collision with the Julia David, striking with the port side her stem and port bow, and doing her considerable damage.

4. The vessels separated immediately. The engines of the Julia David were then stopped, and her pumps sounded. She was making much water, and it was found necessary to turn her head away from the wind and sea. As soon as it could be done without great danger, she was steamed in the direction in which those on board her believed the Sarpedon to be, but when day broke and no traces of the Sarpedon could be discovered, the search was given up, and the Julia David, being in a very disabled state, made her way to a port of refuge.

5. Save as hereinbefore appears, the several statements contained in the petition are denied.

6. A good look-out was not kept on board the Sarpedon.

7. The helm of the Sarpedon was improperly ported.

8. Those on board the Sarpedon improperly neglected or omitted to keep her on her course.

9. Those on board the Sarpedon did not observe the provisions of Article 16 of the " Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Seu."

10. The collision was occasioned by some or all of the matters and things alleged in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th paragraphs hereof, or otherwise by the default of the Sarpedon, or those on board her.

11. No blame in respect of the collision is attributable to the Julia David or to any of those on board her.

And by way of counter-claim the defendants say that the collision caused great damage to the Julia David.

And they claim—

1. The condemnation of the plaintiffs [and their bail] in the damage caused to the Julia David and in the cost of this action.

2. To have an account taken of such damage with the assistance of merchants.

3. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require. Dated the

[1914. CVII.]

day of

19

.

Reply.

[Title of Action.]

The plaintiffs deny the several statements contained in the Answer and Counter-claim [or, as the case may be].

1. The Asia is an iron screw steam-ship of 902 tons net register tonnage, fitted with engines of 120 horse-powér nominal, is of the value of 15,000l., and was at the time of services hereinafter stated, manned with a crew of twenty-three hands under the command of George Hook Bawn, her

master.

2. At about 9 A.M. on the 29th April, 1900, while the Asia--which was in ballast proceeding on a voyage to Nikolaev to load a cargo of grain-was between Odessa and Ochakov, those on board her saw a steam-ship ashore on a bank situated about 10 miles to the westward of Ochakov. The Asia immediately steamed in the direction of the distressed vessel which made signals for assistance.

3. On nearing the distressed vessel, which proved to be the Crosby, one of the Asia's boats was sent to the Crosby, in charge of the second mate of the Asia, and subsequently the master of the Crosby boarded the Asia, and at the request of the master of the Crosby the master of the Asia agreed to endeavour to tow the Crosby afloat.

4. The Crosby at this time was fast aground, and was lying with her head about N.N.W.

5. The master of the Asia having ascertained from the master of the Crosby the direction in which the Crosby had got upon the bank, the Asia steamed up on the starboard side of the Crosby and was lashed to her.

6. The Asia then set on ahead and attempted to tow the Crosby afloat, and so continued towing without effect until the hawser, which belonged to the Asia, broke.

7. The masters of the two vessels being then both agreed in opinion that it would be necessary to lighten the Crosby before she could be got afloat, it was arranged that the cargo from the Crosby should be taken on board the

Asia.

8. The Asia was again secured alongside the Crosby, and the hatches being taken off cargo was then discharged from the Crosby into the Asia, and this operation was continued until about 6 P.M., by which time about 100 tons of such cargo had been so discharged.

9. When this had been done both vessels used their steam, and the Asia tried again to get the Crosby off, but without success. The Asia then towed with a hawser ahead of the Crosby, and succeeded in getting her afloat, upon which the Crosby steamed to an anchorage and then brought up.

10. The Asia steamed after the Crosby and again hauled alongside of her and commenced putting the transhipped cargo again on board the Crosby, and continued doing so until about 6 A.M. of the 30th April, by which time the operation was completed, and the Crosby and her cargo being in safety, the Asia proceeded on her voyage.