Admiralty.
128 Sect.
1.
County Courts in Admiralty.
1
Nature of claims.
280. Claims for salvage, necessaries, towage, wages, and damage must be of such a nature (within the statutory limits) that the Admiralty Court would have had jurisdiction to entertain them at the time when such powers were conferred on the county courts having Admiralty jurisdiction (^). The jurisdiction in damage causes exists when a ship has been damaged, whether the object causing the damage is a ship or not {h) but claims for damage done by a ship in collision with an object situate on land outside the ebb and flow of the tide or with a pier are not included (i). The Admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon the county court may be exercised either in rem or in personam (k). to cargo,
281. A county court having Admiralty jurisdiction has also jurisdiction over claims arising out of any agreement made in over claims on relation to the use or hire of any ship or the carriage of goods chartertherein, and also as to any claim in tort in respect of goods carried parties etc. in any ship, provided the amount claimed does not exceed ^6300 {I). This jurisdiction, which may be exercised in rem as well as in Maritime
jurisdiction
personam, was not possessed by the High Court of Admiralty, and is not now possessed as an original jurisdiction by the Admiralty Division (m). As already mentioned, an appeal lies to a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division (n). County courts appointed to have Admiralty jurisdiction within certain districts (o) (among which the City of London Court is included) have thus a statutory jurisdiction in certain maritime causes in regard to charterparties and bills of lading (_/:>). They have also the same jurisdiction with regard to the forfeiture of dangerous goods as is possessed by the Admiralty Division (q). Purkis v. Flo-wer (1873), (g) Everard v. Kendall (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 428 L. K. 9 Q. B. 114; The Hyemraett (1880), 5 P. D. 227 (towage); Allen v. OarhuU (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 165 (necessaries) Wells v. Gas Float Whitton No. 2, j^erso^^am against a pilot Consequently a claim [1897] A. C. 337 (salvage). for negligence causing a collision is not within the jurisdiction of a county court having Admiralty jurisdiction. See B. v. Judge of Citij of London Court, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273. {h) Mersey Docks and Harhour Board v. Turner, The Zeta, [1893] A. C. 468 and
m
The Warwick (1890), 15 P. D. 189. (*) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 3, and County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 51), s. 4. Bohson V. The Owner of the Kate (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 13 (damage to a pile-driving machine on bank of river) The Normandy, [1904] P. 187 (damage to a pier). {k) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 51), s. 3. (l) Ibid., 8. 2. An action for commission on a charterparty is not within see
the jurisdiction conferred by this section {The Nuova Raffaelina (1871), L. E. 3 A. & E. 483). For illustrations of other matters not within this jurisdiction, see The Zeus (1888), 13 P. D. 188 (demurrage on shipping of coal); B. v. Judge of City of London Court (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 115 (loss of passenger's luggage). (m) The Alina (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227. See also The Cheapsrde, [1904] "P. 339, 343. (n) County Coui-ts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 26. See p. 112, ante. (o) Ihid., s, 2. The County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Order in Council, 1899, enumerates the county courts upon which an Admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred, and defines the limits of their districts for Admiralty purposes. (p) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c.
51)
s.
{q)
See
2.
p. 78, ante.
