Mr. Drvnnioxp appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr. Ronixsox appeared for the defendant, In this case, which was before the Court on the 24th, 25th, 27th and 28th October, his Lordship to-day delivered the following This was a cause of damage brought by the owners of the pilot-boat S. C. Farnham, a schooner of about 50 tous, against the S.3. Crusader, of 647 tons, for damages arising from a collision which took place between those vessels at the entrance of the Yangtsze river at a little before 6 o'clock on the morning of the 2nd September last. At the hearing' of the can-e, when Mr. Robinson proceeded objected that the petition did not state place of collision, the direction of th the courses of the two vessels, or the cireumstances which must have been within the plaintiffs' knowledge leading to the collision and that the plaintiffs could not he heard at the Bar in support of a case which they had not made by their pleading; and the Bothnia (29 LI. Rep. N.S. Adm, p. 65; 3. Lusbington's Rep., p. 52) was referred to. In that ease un application was made by the defendant to reform a responsive _allegation by striking oat certain words it on the ground that those words disclosed, on behalf of the plaintiff, an entirely new case of negligence of the defendant's vessel, and Dr. Lushington said, "'The rule has always been in eases of collision that the complaining party, in accordanes with ordinary principles, should set forth his whole case in the original pleading, charging the other party with all he knows and thinks 6t as having occasioned the accident.
The whole of the case ought, however, as far powible, to be made out in the original pleading and the words camp! ordered to be struck out. In th Claus Thomesen (32 LI. Rep.
106) h was a ca answer ay insufficient, Dr. Lus!
"Every pleading, whether the petition or the answer, ought to be so frated us that, if the evidence were taken before an exatni the pleadings alone would enable him to elicit all the facts of the case, I am of opinion that that would be impracticable upon the answer before me, It must therefore be amended by stating more particularly, not only the citcumstances already alleged, but thers as would be coles.,
Lushington said, am not prepared to say US, Adm, p), De. that every petition should contain every material fact, It seems to me sufficient that it should contain auch facts ax woud, if proved itted, establish the plaintiff's right to [donot mean to say that other cireumstances shuull not be pleaded." The thirtieth of the Rules of this C o provides that plaintiff not giving sufficient information to enable the defendant reasonably to understand the ud particulars of the d him, may be ordered, of the defendant
stay proceedings until the order tition 3 andthe with." Now, apply the abo Rule of this Court to the petition, In the fest rurwe of the 8. C. Farnham is with reference to the i in the petition, but Kofod, the pilot on board the S. 0. Farikam, said in his evidence she bore about N.E. by E, from the pilot-boat, In the second paragraph, it is averred that "when so proceeding as aforesaid, the said Pilot Kofod sighted, at a little alter five o'clock in the mor it is not averred, as was stated in evidence by Kofod, that the course of the pilot-boat was thereupon changed towards the Crusader. In the third paragraph, it is averred that the pilot-boat proceeded on her course; (no other course having mentioned in' the petition than tire course stated in the first paragraph, viz, to the Anglo-Norman)
ition then proceeds to aver that man, the course of the pilot boat was changed toa course direct to the Anylo-Normax. No doubt it was mided to be averred that when the pilot sighted the Crusider, as men-ioned in the second paragraph, he made for taking a course E.S.E., and proceeded on Ulat course; and that when about two miles from the Anglo-Norman be changed his course from E.S.E. direct to the Anglo-Norman; but no such averment was made, The fourth paragraph is as followa: "When about a mile from the said barque Anglo-Norman, the said steamship "havi and e any attempt to get out and a collision appearing imminent, the said Pilot Kofod ordered the lowdah to put the helm hard-a-starboard as the only way to ease the force of the blow, but the win was 80 light that this had very little, if any, effect." The fifth paragraph states that just at the same time the helm of the Crusader was put hard-a-port, but there was not sufficient time and she came on and struck the Farnham on her starboard bow," doin great damage. The petition then, (paragraph! sixth), averred that the collision was due to the proper navigation of the Crusader and the igeuce and default of those on board of prayed the Court to pronounce against crusader for the damage proceeded for with costs, 'To that petition the defendant pleaded, and the only material paragraph in plea is the fifth, which is as follows: "The der and S. Q.' Farnham were not, up to time that the S.C, Farnham put her helm to starboard, which was shortly before the colli proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision; but when the S.C. Farnham put her helm to starboard, the Crusader did her best under the cireut stances to get out of the way of the S.C, Farnham vy putting her helm hard-a-port and stopping her engines." Uf an ap cation had been made by the defendant, before answer, to amend the petition, on the ground that it did not give suflicient information to enable the defendant reasonably jeratand the nature and parti= up against him, it would, think, having regard to what I have said when reviewing the statements in the petition, have been successful, But the defendant' made no such application; and not only did he not shew at the hearing how he bad been prejudiced or embarrassed by the insufficiency of the petition, but the petition is wanting lo fendant stowe ing that claim sot up he complained of petition, I think, therefore, that the objections to the petition fail, But there are to be considered the questions which ative upon the plaintiffs' Preliminary Act, In the ease of the Vortigern ey, 518) Dr. Lushing-ton said, "Preliminary Acts were instituted for two reasons. parties of the recent facto, and to prevent the de from shaping his case to meet the case put forward the plaintiff. In practice they have bee found very useful; and neither party is allowed to depart "from the cate he has set up in hia Prelimiuary Act. Some of the facts stated in the Prelimivary Act are facta absolutely within the knowledge of the party making the statement; some are matters of opinion only. The Court will expect correctness, where correctness is in the power of the party. In the present case, it is urged by Dr. Twiss, on the part of the Vortigern, that there isa mistake, an in. advertent mistake, in the 6th article of her Pretiminary Act. ' He says that the direction of the Kepler's head, (the vessel with which tue Portiyern collided) therein described a south-east, should have been south by east, {a difference of three points.) ' But thie take, if mistake it be, cannot be rectified now. It is too late, Alistakes, we know, will creep in; but ay ¢oon as the mistake was discovered, an application should have been made to the Court, upon affidavit, for leave to amend. I cannot amend uow, at the last moment, upon the mere statement of Counsel;" and accordingly the amendment was disallowed. In the case of the Inflexible (Swabey, p. 33) it was stated in her Preliminary Act that the Soubaldar, the vessel with which the Z#jlezible came into collision, was first seeu.broad on her port bow, distant frow a mile to a mile and a half, and in the allegation of the Injlezible, the Soubahdar's light was stated to have been reported about
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.