The Hawaiian gazette., 1875-11-10
HAWAIIANGAZETTE
AN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL,
DEVOTED TO HAWAIIAN PROGRESS.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Admiralty.
r. B. AVERY EFT Al. rs. STEAMSHIP
"CYPHRENES"

the beH2nts. ne steamer Is passenger anu
freight boat, and is Running between the British
Colonies Of Australia and San Francisco. 1t ap-
pears in evidence that the RavenstOndale was a.
anchor in the harbor of Honolulu, and that the
Steamer in the daytime, on her passage to her
berth at tie wharf in said harbOr, collided with
the Ravens tondale and caused the damage COM
planned Of, and the question is, whether the Steam.
er is liable?
1t is contended on the part of the respondent
that as the Steamer was under the charge of q
Pilot-if the collision was caused by the neglect
or mistake of the Pilot, that the owners of the
Cyphrenes are not liable according to the gen.
eral principles of the maritime law, or by express
statute In the case Of the Neptune the Second,
which was decided two years after the passage Of
the statute of 80 George Ill, which contained
provision that the owner. or master, Of any ship
shall not be answerable for any loss or damage
occasioned by the neglect, ineomPetency or inca
pacity of any licensed pilot. Sir William Scott
did not advert the statute in giving his opinion,
but SAID, if the mere fact of having pilot on
board and acting in obedience to his directions,
would discharge the owners from responsibility, l
am of opinion that they should be excused in the
present case. think it is sufficiently established
in proof that the master acted throughout in con-
formity to the directions OF the pilot. But this
conceive is not the true rule of law. The par
ties who suffer are entitled to have their remedy
against the vessel that occasioned the damage,
and are not under the necessity of looking to the
pilot, from whom re dress is not always to be had
for compensation"
In the case Of the Givoamo, s English ADM
rally Reports l69. the Court ruled that foreign
ship though in charge of licensed pilot, is liable
for the full amount Of damages arising from col
lision for which she alone was to blame, nOtwth-
standing the stat. and 2. George ". 20, and
6 George ". C l25, which do not extend to pro-
ceedings in this Court The Instance Court OF
Admiralty is guided by the principles of interna-
tonal and not by those OF the municipal law.
There were several British pilot acts passed IN the
reigns of George III. and George W., and also
the Shipping Act of the 18th aud 18th Victoria.
All OF them contain provision 10 the effect that
the owner or master of any ship shall not be an
swerable for any loss or damage occasiOned by
the neglect, default, incompetency, or incapacity
of any licensed pilot The Court say, in the
same case. that it cannot be doubted that before
these statutes were passed exonerating masters
and owners where licensed pilot is in charge Of
vessel, that remedy existed in this Court, and
the Legislature has not in express terms taken 1t
away" The vessel was held liable, although in
charge OF licensed pilot at the time OF the col
lision. There were several other cases involving
the same facts aud principles and were decided in
the same way by the same judge. So the Eng
l-l, l.. h., H..
ton in the case of the Protector. The cases re-
ferred to above we're overruled by him and held
the true rule to be, that the statute took away
the responsibility of the vessel, when the acci-
dent was imputable to the fault of the pilot alone
1t may be regarded as settled in England, that if
the pilot is alone in fault, the owners are not La
Bile.
The same question was involved in the case OF
the steamer China, Z Wallace So, which was de-
cded by the Supreme Court of the United States.
This steamer foreign vessel, was bound from
the port of New York, and being in pilot waters,
md in charge of licensed pilot of that port ran
into q vessel Of the United States and sunk her |
The collision, as the Court say, was occasoned by
the gross fault of the licensed pilot then in charge
Of the vessel. The Court decided that under the |
statute of New York, vessels were compelled to |
take pilot Bat held further, Z Wallace SO |
1.-THE statute containing no clause exempting the |
vessel or owners from liability for the Pilots mis- |
that the responsibility of the yes
sci for torts committed by it not being derived |
from the law of master and servant, or from the |
common law at all, bat from maritime law, which |
impressed a maritime lien upon the vessel in |
whumsoever hands it might be for torts commit
ted by it, the fact that the statute thus compelled
The master to take the pilot did not exonerae the
vessel from liability to respond for torts done by |
It., as, ex. gr., for a collision, though the result |
only of the pilots negligence
Mr.. Justice WareIsays in his I'd volume 49, The
Huntress) of reports tina: "a Court of Admiralty |
IS Court Of the law Of Nations and derives in part
It's jurisdiction from that law The maritime law in
It's general principles, applicable to shipping has
! higher antiquity than any other existing system
If law, and has become SO fully recognized by the
world, that no Court can with pro-
Drety depart from its principles and practice, IN
ess by special act of legislation. In England
he maritime law has been superseded by an act |
of Parliament as TO the liabilities Of owners Of
1essels in cases Of collision but no such enact
nent has been made by the Legislature of this
Kingdom, and therefore this case must be deci-
led upon the general principles of the maritime
aw unaffected by statute provisions and this rem
lers the vessel liable for n collision attributable
10 the pilots mismanagement and it can only be
upon the ground that the general admiralty laws
have been superseded by an act Of Parliament that
he owners of vessels are exonerated from liability
IN case OF collision.
In the case Of Yates ct al. w. Brown ct nl 8
Peck, %. The facts in this case are very similar
10 the case at bar, and the question reserved for
The whole Court was, whether, there being a per-
son duly authorized to pilot the vessel, the own
,rs Of the vessel we're liable for an injury arising
rom negligence or Encouragement in navigating
he vessel out of the harbor. Parker, C. j. 10
irving the decision Of the Court, says, that the
owner Of a vessel, which through the fault or neg
igenee of anyone on board, Injuries another yes
eI by running foul Of her, is liable to the injured
party, although there be pilot on board who has
be entire control and management Of the vessel.
The same principle is recognized in l60. l6l.
Abbott on shipping and note to the American
edition Busy vs.. Donaldson, Dotlers, 206.
Fletcher VS.. Rroddick, . Bos. andPul., 1872 The
lark Lofty, 0lcutts Adm. p. 329.
II is argued that as the statute compels the
payment of half pilotage, that tits compulsory and
therefore, exonerates the owners from RESPONSE
'ility. The statute, judging from its terms. was
lot passed for such a purpose, and does not in
'olve any such consequences. II was passed
merely to sustain the-system Of pilotage, and for
10 other purpose whatever. The Court would re-
Juire clear and explicit enactments by the Legis-
ature before it would be justified by the maritime
aw to change its principles and alter the ordinary
ules OF judicial construction. To displace lien,