"  But  the  plaintiff  succeeds,  not  because  the  defendant
"  is  owner  of  the  carriage,  or  ship  or  float,  but  because
"  those  who  were  guilty  of  the  negligence  were  his
"  servants."

1  2  App.  Gas.  767.
Digitized  by  Microsoft®


440  OF    NAVIGATION,    AND    THEREIN    OF    CONSERVANCY.
In  the  above  case^  their  lordships  held,  that  where  a  ship
was  driven  against  a  pier  through  the  violence  of  the  winds
and  waves  after  having  been  abandoned  by  the  master  and
crew,  the  owner  was  not  liable  either  at  common  law  or
under  the  Pier  and  Harhours  Act,  1847  (10  Vict.  c.  27)
(overruling  Dennis  v.  Tovell,  L.  E.,  8  Q.  B.  10),  for  the
damage  thereby  occasioned.
Their  lordships  were  all  agreed  that  at  common  law  the
owner  would  not  be  liable  unless  the  ship  was  under  his
control,  or  that  of  his  servants,  but  much  hesitation  was
felt,  as  to  the  construction  of  the  section  of  the  statute  im-
posing a  further  liability  on  the  owners  of  vessels.  Lord
Cairns,  L.  0.,  was  of  opinion  that  the  statute  was  passed
to  make  the  master  liable,  whoever  was  navigating  the  ship,
without  showing  that  they  were  his  servants,  and  that  it
proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  damage  had  been  done
for  which  compensation  could  be  recovered  at  common  law
against  some  person — i.  e.  damage  occasioned  by  negligent
or  wilful  conduct,  and  not  by  the  act  of  God.
Lord  Hatherley  agreed  with  the  opinion  of  the  Lord
Chancellor  with  extreme  doubt  and  hesitation.
Lord  O'Hagan  held  that  the  section  pointed  to  some-
thing done  by  the  act  of  man,  or  to  the  act  of  the  person
in  charge,  and  that  the  ship  was  derelict.
