LIABILITY FOR COLLISION

Accepting the decision in The Lemington 83 and the dicta in The Ticonderoga," The Tasmania 81 and The Ripon City 84 as sound law, the facts of the present case do not come within them. Upon those facts I hold that no maritime lien attached to the vessel by reason of the collision and that the defendants are not, either through their vessel or otherwise, responsible to the plaintiffs for the collision damage. There will be judgment for the defendants, with costs.

101

ARMED VESSELS

H. M. SUBMARINE "E-14"

([1920] A. C. 403)

ON APPEAL FROM THE PRIZE COURT, ENGLAND

Prize court-Prize bounty-Destruction of enemy transport-Enemy "armed ship"-Naval prize act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. c. 25), section 42

An order in council of March 2, 1915, made pursuant to section 42 of the naval prize act, 1864, provided for the payment of prize bounty to such of the officers and crew of any of H. M.'s ships of war as were present at the taking or destroying of any "armed ship" of the enemy.

In May, 1915, a British submarine torpedoed and sank a Turkish transport having on board 6,000 Turkish troops, who had with them rifles and ammunition, also six field guns so disposed on the ship's deck that, at suitable ranges, they could have been used with effect against the submarine. The ship was a Turkish fleet auxiliary manned by naval ratings and commanded by Turkish naval officers; she carried as part of her regular equipment a few light quick-firing guns. The officers and crew of the submarine applied to the prize court for prize bounty:

Held, that the meaning of the words "armed ship" in section 42 was not limited to a ship commissioned and armed for the purpose of offensive action in a naval engagement, and that the applicants were entitled to prize bounty under the order in council.

Judgment of the prize court reversed.

Present: Lord Sumner, Lord Parmoor, The Lord Justice Clerk, and Sir Arthur Channell.

Appeal from judgments of the admiralty division (in prize) dated February 21, 1917,' and November 25, 1918.2

The officers and crew of H. M.'s submarine E-14 by a motion in the prize court sought a declaration that they were entitled to £31,375 as prize bounty for the destruction of the Turkish transport Guj Djeml on May 10, 1915. The prize bounty was claimed under an order in council of March 2, 1915, made in pursuance of section 42 of the naval prize act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. c. 25), which refers to the destruction of any "armed ship" of the enemy.

Argument for claimants.

Crown.

The president (Sir Samuel Evans), by a judgment delivered on February 21, 1917, held that the meaning of the words "armed ship" in section 42 was "a fighting unit of the fleet, a ship commissioned and armed for the purpose of offensive action in a naval engagement." He found that the evidence before him did not bring the Guj Djemal within that description and dismissed the application, but without prejudice to the claimants renewing it upon any further evidence that might be forthcoming.

The motion was renewed before the president (Lord Sterndale) on November 25, 1918, further evidence being adduced. The effect of the evidence given upon the two applications appears from the judgment of their lordships.

Lord Sterndale, P., considered that he was not at liberty to depart from the principles laid down in the decision. above referred to, and held that the fresh evidence did not render the transport an "armed ship" within those principles. The motion was accordingly dismissed.

October 21, 1919. Sir Erle Richards, K. C., and G. P. Langton for the claimants: Prize bounty was payable under the order in council, since upon the evidence the Guj Djemal was an "armed ship" of the enemy. There is nothing in the acts in force before the naval prize act, 1864, nor in the decisions, which indicates that the meaning of the plain words used should be limited as held in the prize court. [Reference was made to Several Dutch Schuyts; L'Alerte; La Clorinde; The Sedulous; 6 Anne, c. 13, s. 8; 43 Geo. 3, c. 160, s. 37; 45 Geo. 3, c.72, s. 5; 17 and 18 Vict. c. 18, ss. 3, 11.] Prize bounty has been awarded under the order in council for the sinking of ships not coming within the principle applied in the present case—namely, a patrol ship and an armed mine layer: See H. M. Submarine E-11,' and The Konigen Luise.8

3

5

6

Argument for Sir Gordon Hewart, A. G., and J. G. Pease for the respondent, the procurator general. The view of the late President as to the meaning of the words "armed ship" was right. The reference in section to "the beginning of the engagement" and the basis upon which the

SUBMARINE E-14

bounty is to be computed indicate that what was meant was a fighting unit of a fleet. In the unreported cases in which during the present war prize-bounty has been awarded for the destruction of patrol ships, minelayers, or armed auxiliary ships, the point that the order in council did not apply was not taken.

105

December 3. The judgment of their lordships was Facts of case. delivered by-Lord SUMNER: In this appeal the commander, officers and crew of H. M.'s submarine E-14 seek, pursuant to 27 and 28 Vict. c. 25, s. 42, and the order in council dated March 2, 1915, to establish their right to a grant of £5 per head of the 6,000 Turkish troops, and of the 200 ship's complement, who were on board of the Guj Djemal, when they destroyed her with a torpedo in the Sea of Marmora, near Kalolimno Island, on May 10, 1915. The troops had their rifles and ammunition, and with them were six Krupp 75-mm. field guns, also with ammunition, and so disposed on the ship's deck astern that at suitable ranges they could have been used against the E-14 with effect. The ship herself was part of the Ottoman naval force, a fleet auxiliary manned by naval ratings and commanded by officers of the Navy of the Sublime Porte, and she carried a few light quick-firing guns as part of her regular equipment, with which she could defend herself if necessary. At the time in question she was acting as a troop transport, and this would appear to have been her regular employment. She was on her way to the Dardanelles, and it was known to the Turkish Government that British submarines had passed up the straits for the purpose, among others, of interfering with that traffic.

By section 42 of the naval prize act, 1864, the right "Armed ship." in question would attach if the Guj Djemal was, in the words of the section, "an armed ship of any of His Majesty's enemies." This is entirely a matter of construction of the section in its application to the facts of this case, and no other question was raised in the appeal. Little assistance, if any, is to be derived from prior decisions or earlier legislation. No decision before the war turned on or touched this section, and in the cases decided during the war the present contention had not been raised. The older acts go back for many generations. At one time the number of guns, and not of men