the magistrate. In this view of the case it becomes unnecessary to consider the question, whether a voyage which may terminate on "the continent of Europe between the river Elbe and Brest," is a voyage which is to terminate in the United Kingdom, though I am inclined to think that it is not. It is much to be regretted that owners and masters of vessels are not more careful in the description of the voyage for which the ship's articles are drawn up; there can be no fair advantage in making the description of the voyage ambiguous, or so large as not to give the seaman that knowledge of the service he undertakes to perform, to which the law considers him entitled,-a voyage to "North and South America," is in fact little more definite than a voyage to any part of the world (b). Secretan and Dunbar, for the Promoter. NOTE. When in the shipping articles of an English vessel, the voyage was described to be from the port of Liverpool to Savannah, and any other port or ports in the United States of America, and any port or ports in British North America, and any port or ports in the West India Islands, at the discretion of the master, or consignees, as freight or cargo may offer, and back to her final port of discharge, of Great Britain and Ireland; term of time on the voyage not to exceed twelve months: Held, that the voyage intended was confined to the ports on the eastern shore of the continent, and that the articles did not authorise a voyage to San Francisco, on the north-west coast. The Ada, Davies' Rep. D. C. of U.S. for the District of Maine, p. 407. "Within the words of the description of this voyage, the (b) The Varuna, L. Canada, V. A. R. 357; The Minerva, 1 Hagg. 347; The George Home, MARATHON. MARATHON. master might carry his crew to any port in British North America. But the British possessions extend across the whole breadth of the continent, and without going beyond the literal sense of the language of the contract, he might carry them on a voyage to the extreme north-west coast. Can it be imagined that the owners, when they prepared this shipping paper to read to the crew, supposed, unless some verbal explanations were given at the time, that the men would understand that they were binding themselves to go a voyage to the south of the Colombia river, or to Vancouver's Island, if the master chose to carry them there? The description would naturally suggest to them a voyage to those ports which were familiar to the commerce of their country, and which were frequently and ordinarily visited for the purposes of trade; and, in the popular and usual sense, they would suggest nothing more. That is, it would be taken to be a voyage in which the vessel might visit any of the American or British ports on the eastern shore of the continent. This is the interpretation that I should have given to the contract, if the description of the voyage had terminated with merely naming the ports which might be visited, in the order in which they stand in the shipping articles. They would, without some further explanations were given, suggest to the seamen a voyage embracing the ports on the eastern shore of the continent and nothing more. It was justly urged, by the counsel for the libellants, that if there is a fair and reasonable doubt as to the true meaning of the articles, the seamen are on every principle entitled to claim a construction favourable to themselves. It is the owners who give the description of the voyage, and on general principles applying to all contracts, if the language is ambiguous or uncertain in its meaning, the construction shall be against the party who uses it, because he is bound to express himself clearly; and this principle applies with all its force to contracts between owners, who are always men conversant in business, and shrewd and watchful in looking to their own interests, and seamen, who are proverbially careless, improvident, and ignorant. The disparity in the condition of the parties imposes on the Court a duty to take care that the improvidence of seamen is not entrapped by the superior watchfulness and sagacity of owners into engagements that they did not intend to make." Judge WARE, in The Ada, Davies' Rep., p. 412. MARATHON. MARTHA 25th November, 1859. MARTHA SOPHIA-BOUCHOT. Trinity House Regulations, Lights, Collision. The non-compliance by a vessel with the Trinity House Regulations, as to the exhibition of lights, will not prevent the owners from recovering damages for injuries received from another vessel by collision, if the officers of the latter vessel saw the former and knew her position, This was a cause promoted against the brigantine Martha Sophia, by the owner of the schooner Diligence, for damage sustained by a collision in the harbour of Quebec. The facts of the case are fully adverted to in the following judgment : JUDGMENT.-Hon. Henry Black, On the 4th of October, 1858, the schooner Diligence, of about 80 tons burden, owned by John Maxham of Quebec, the promoter in this cause, having discharged a cargo of salt, at Point Levi, proceeded to the mouth of the St. Charles, in the harbour of Quebec, and there anchored. In the evening of the same day she was still at anchor, and, after dark, the master, Pierre Mogé, caused a bright light to be placed in the rigging of her foremast. This is distinctly proved by the evidence of the master, and of the two seamen who formed the crew;-they describe the light and its position clearly, and their evidence is consistent and positive; they say it was placed about ten or twelve feet above the deck. While the Diligence was in this position, and while she exhibited this light, at about half-past eight o'clock, the brigantine Martha Sophia, in tow of the steamer St. Louis, came down from Montreal, with a full cargo, with which she was to proceed to Miramichi, in New Brunswick. Both the brigantine and the steamer were well lighted. After passing down the river below the India Wharf, and as Laflamme, one of the witnesses for the defence says, within 80 feet of the Diligence, which both he and the mate of the brigantine (Regis Mercier), another of the defendant's witnesses, say, they saw, the tide was running full ebb, and after passing the Diligence as I have stated, the steamer and brigantine turned up the river against the tide, and when at a distance above her, which Mercier, mate of the brigantine, now thinks to have been about five arpents, but which he says he then thought appeared to him to be about eight or ten arpents, from the darkness of the night, and from his not seeing the light on board the Diligence— he ordered the brigantine's anchor to be let go, and cast off the tow rope by which she had been towed by the steamer. The Martha Sophia, drifting down with the ebb tide, and having no sail set, or any other means of controlling her movements, dragged her anchor, and, before it held, came down upon the Diligence, and ran foul of her, doing the damage for which this action is brought. The claim is resisted mainly on the ground that the Diligence ought, under the Trinity House Regulations of 1858, then in force, to have had two distinct lights, one in the larboard fore-rigging, and another on the mizen peak, or in the mizen or main starboard rigging, each of which lights ought to have been placed 20 feet above the deck. It is certain that she had not the two lights, but it seems also certain that she had one placed in the larboard fore-rigging, as required by the regulation, though somewhat too low. Upon the subject of the one light there is some conflicting evidence, many of the witnesses for the defence saying there was no light at all exhibited by the Diligence; but this evidence only goes to prove that they did not see it, whereas, on the other hand, it is positively sworn by all the men on board the Diligence that a bright MARTHA SOPHIA. |