Rail.  Co.,  34  L.  J.,  C.  P.  259 ;  Macrow  L.  R.,  7  Ex.  267 ;  L.  R.,  9  Ex.  338.
V.  G-.  W.  Rail.  Co.,  L.  K.,  6  Q.  B.  612.  (ff)  Smith  v.  Shepherd,  cited  Abhott

(d)  1  C.  P.  D.  at  p.  444.  (5th),    252  ;    (Hth),    iv.    6,    1  ;    Trent

(e)  1  T.  R.  27.  Navigation  v.  Wood,  3  Esp.  127.
(/)  Liver   Alkali   Co.    v,    Johnson,  (A)  New  Brttuswick  Steamhoat  Co.  v.
10  THE  CONTEACT.
Sect.  8.  So  where  the  vessel  containing  the  goods  was  being  towed,  and
was  driven  by  the  force  of  the  sea  on  to  the  tug  in  consequence  of
her  stopping  (properly)  to  make  way  for  another  vessel;  the  proxi-
mate cause  being  the  stopping  of  the  tug,  the  damage  was  not  due
to  an  act  of  God  («).  And  in  an  American  case  (J),  a  stranding,
which  happened  through  a  mistake  made  in  taking  a  light  upon
another  stranded  vessel  to  be  a  known  beacon  light,  was  held  not
to  be  caused  by  an  act  of  Grod;  and  evidence  to  show  that  the
navigation  had  been  vigilant  was  held  to  be  inadmissible.
Beyond  9.  But  if  the  causes  of  the  casualty  are  independent  of  man,  it

control..
is  not  necessary  that  they  should  be  extraordinary,  or  such  as  could
not  have  been  anticipated.  Storms  of  wind,  violence  of  the  sea,
and  lightning,  are  common,  but  their  results  may  be  within  the
exception  (k).  A  sudden  gust  of  wind  may  suffice  (l) ;  so,  also,
may  a  frost  (m).
Nor  is  violence  necessary.  A  sudden  failure  of  the  wind  under
critical  circumstances  may  be  enough;  as  where  a  ship  is  tacking
near  rocks  (n),  or  is  under  the  influence  of  a  current  setting  her  on
to  the  shore.
