Ontario Reports Volume 43 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919 edition. Excerpt: ...McFadden v. Blue Star Line, 1905 1 K.B. 697, 707; Halsbury's Laws of AP 'e1gl"' England, vol. 26, p. 216; and, were I of the opinion that the i learned trial Judge had based his finding of seaworthiness on that Gggagls evidence only, or that the learned Judge did not intend to say Exrolrr Co. that the ship was absolutely seaworthy, but only that the defendCAQADA ants had made honest, bond fide, and reasonable endeavour to STE- 4551? make her seaworthy, I should be obliged to give effect to the' Lmnnn. appellants' contention that he had misapprehended the law. F, g,,, _A_ To give point to his argument, counsel for the appellants picked from the learned Judge's reasons the following statement: "The inspection and repair, including the caulking of the seams, was, I think, due diligence to make the ship seaworthy;" but I do not think that we can arrive at a fair or true interpretation of the opinion by separating this sentence from the other findings. We must read the opinion as a whole; and, when it as read as a whole and considered with the evidence, it seems to me to have been established to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge that, during the time the vessel was loading, she did not leak appreciably; that the fiooding commenced after the boat left the dock; that, after the hole was closed by repair, the vessel, on all her future voyages during the season, proved seaworthy, from which / the inference is irresistible that the boat was in every way seaworthy when she left the dock, and that, I think, is the effect of the findings. At the opening of the trial, the plaintiffs' counsel stated the issue to be whether or not the ship was unseaworthy when she was...