40
4. Those on board the " Julia David " proper look-out.
neglected to keep a
5. Those on board the "Julia David" neglected to duly port the helm of the "Julia David."
>
6. The helm of the "Julia -David was improperly star- boarded.
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 negli- gent navigation of the "Julia David."
The Plaintiffs claim-
1. A declaration that they are entitled to the damage pro- ceeded 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
18
(Signed) A.B. &c., Plaintiffs.
ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIM,
Supre
In the Vice Admiralty Court of
Stregkong
Admiralk theres dection [Title of Action.]
1. The Defendants are the owners of the Belgian screw steam- "Julia David," of about 1,274 tons register, and worked ship by engines of 140 horse power nominal, with a crew of thirty hands, which left Havre on the 2nd of September 1876, with a general cargo, bound to Alicante and other ports in the Medi-
terranean,
2. About 2,45 a.m. of the 4th of September 1876, 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. J W. by bridge steering compass, or S.W. W. magnetic, and was making about five knots an hour. Her regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was beeing kept on board her.
"C
Julia 3. In the circumstances aforesaid those on board the David" saw the green and masthead lights of a steamship, the "Sarpedon," about two miles off, and about two points
41
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 inmediately reversed full speed, but, never- theless, 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.
33
5. Save as herein-before appears, the several statements con- tained 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 pro- visions of Article 16 of the “ Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions 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 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 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.
Dated the
day of (Signed)
18
C.D. &c., Defendants.
200
...