CAP. 4]
Supreme Court.
2. About 2.45 a.m. of the 4th September, 1905, 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. "Julia David", under steam alone, was steering S.S.W. by bridge steering compass, or S.W. magnetic, and was making about five knots. 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 David" saw the green and mast-head lights of a steamship, the "Sarpedon", about two 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 her stem and port bow on the port side, 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". The helm of the "Sarpedon" was improperly ported.
7.
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 Sea.
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 counterclaim 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 costs of this action. To have an account taken of such damage, with the assistance of merchants.
2.
3. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require.
Dated the day of 19
(Signed) C.D., etc., Defendants.
Page 40
Page 41