SET-OFF

Of mutual debts.

See" COLONIAL LAW," 3.

.SHIP AND SHIPPING.

1. Construction of Articles 13, 14,
and 18, of the Steering and
Sailing Rules of the Merchant
Shipping Acts Amendment Act of
1862 (25th & 26th Vict. c. 63).
In inferring the intended move-
ments of a Vessel approaching
from a contrary direction, the
relative position of the two Ves-
sels when they first come in sight
of each other must not alone be
regarded; other circumstances,
such as the bend of the River,
or the necessity of avoiding
another Vessel, which may occa-
sion the apparent alteration of
course, must be considered.
By the Merchant Shipping Acts
Amendment Act of 1862, Vessels
navigating narrow channels are
at liberty to go on whichever
side they please, taking care to
observe the Regulations for pre-
venting collision.

A Steam-vessel coming up the
River Thames came in sight of
another Steam-vessel proceeding
down the River at the time she
was rounding a bend of the
river, and for that purpose had
placed her head in such a direc-
tion that, unless her course was
changed, the Steamers would, if
the former kept her course, cross
each other so as to involve risk

of collision; whereupom the
Steamer coming up the River,
having the other on her star-
board side, changed her course
so as to keep out of the way, if
the other Steamer followed the
direction in which her head was
turned: the latter not doing so,
but pursuing her intention of
rounding the bend of the River,
the two Steamers came in col-
lision. A suit having been in-
stituted against the Steamer
rounding the bend of the River,
the Judge of the Admiralty Court
held, that the Plaintiffs' Steamer
had only done what was required
of her under the 14th Article of
the Regulations for preventing
collisions, which directs, that "if
two Ships under steam are cross-
ing, so as to involve risk of colli-
sion, the Ship which has the
other on her own starboard side
shall keep out of the way of the
other"-On appeal, held, by the
Judicial Committee, that the de-
cree was wrong, that the 14th
Article did not, in the circum-
stances, apply, and that the
Plaintiffs' Steamer was, therefore,
not justified by it: that the
Steamer sued was acting in con-
formity with the 18th Article,
which directs, that where by the
Steering and Sailing Rules "one
of two Ships is to keep out of
the way, the other shall keep her
course; and that the Steamer
sued was not in any way to blame.
[The Velocity]
- 263
2. In a case of damage by collision

99

3. In a case of collision between
Steamship and Sailing Ves-
sel, occasioned by the fault of
the Steamship, it was proved,
that the Sailing Vessel had failed
to comply with the Admiralty
Regulations regarding lights,
having either shown no lights,
as she was bound, or if she had
any lights, that the lights could
not be seen till the collision was
too imminent for prevention.
The Judicial Committee reversed
the decision of the Admiralty
Court, being of opinion, that the
collision might have been avoided
if the Sailing Vessel had obeyed
the Admiralty Regulations, and
that though the omission to ex-
hibit proper lights might be im-
material, where it is clearly shown
that the absence of such lights
was not the cause of the collision,
and did not conduce to it, yet
that where it is proved, that a
Vessel has not shown proper
lights, the onus lies on such
Vessel to show, that the non-
compliance with the Regulations
was not the cause of the colli-
sion, which the Sailing Vessel

failed to do, the general rule

TRADE.

lations as regards lights, but

only obey the Admiralty Regu-

must obey them in time to pre-

Business.

See "FAMILY NAME."

religion of the individual; and
in the event of such rule not
being applicable, the Courts were,
as provided by the Regulations,
to determine according to the
rules of justice, equity, and good
conscience. There was no evi-
dence that S. professed any par-
ticular religion. S. had five
illegitimate Sons acknowledged
by him in his lifetime, and
several Grandchildren, all of
whom were, with one exception,
illegitimate. By his Will, made
in the English form, after giving
life estates to his five Sons, he
bequeathed as follows:-"I will
and declare, that it is my inten-
tion and meaning, that in the
event of all or any of my afore-
mentioned Sons (naming them)
dying leaving issue or children,
that the share of the Fathers
shall devolve on the issue or
children, to be by them divided
in equal shares." J., an illegiti-
mate Son of one of the Testator's
five Sons, born some years after
the Testator's death, claimed,
under the above devise to "chil-
dren," to share with his legiti-
mate Sister a moiety of his
Father's one-fifth share:-
:-
Held (reversing the decree of the
Courts in India), first, that the
technical rule of English law,
that under a testamentary gift to
children as a class, illegitimate
children, although recognized by

the Testator in his lifetime,
cannot share with natural lawful
children, was not applicable, and
that, under the circumstances, it
was impossible to apply any par-
ticular law of construction to S.'s
Will, or to regulate his succession,
and that, therefore, the case fell
to be decided, as directed by the
Regulations, by the principles of
natural justice, equity, and good
conscience; and,

Secondly, that the limited significa-.
tion which the English law puts
upon the word "children," when
used as the designation of a class,
and not as descriptio persona, was
not to be followed in construing
S.'s Will, as the word "children
in such Will denoted and included
as well illegitimate as legitimate
children, and such illegitimate
children having been recognized
and treated by S. as his children,
effect was to be given to the
devise, according to the actual
manner in which the Testator
used the word "children," where-
by he intended to include ille-
gitimate children of his Son's
whenever acknowledged by their
putative Father, and that the
illegitimate child of J. took
equally with his legitimate sister
under S.'s Will. [Barlow v. Orde]

WINDING UP.
See" COMPROMISE."

437