Forum Okrętów Wojennych

Powoli nikomu nie wierze

Iltis schooner
29.10.1855 KW Danzig
178t
855 Kgl. Preuß. Barsenmeisterei
1862 Kgl. Preuß- Lotsenkdo de Jade
1871 Lotsenkdo de Jade
1876 deleted

Leopard schooner
1857 Schiffbaumeister Kraus, Hamburg
21/18,5m x 8m
Crew: 5-6
16.5.1857 Kgl. Preuß. Barsenmeisterei
1862 Kgl. Preuß- Lotsenkdo de Jade
1871 Lotsenkdo de Jade
15.1.1875 Lotsenfahrzeug KW Wilhelmshaven
21.3.1876 sold fro 1525M repenning & zur Mühlen, Kiel

Mercur corvette
22.7.1847, J.W,.Klawitter, Danzig:
495rt 330 CL; 37,49 m L., 4,27 m Tfg.
Vollschiff; segelte "bei guten Umständen" 12 - 13 kn;
16.8.1847 Preußische Seehandlung, Berlin
26.3.1850 bought Prussian navy
rebuilt Marinedepot Stettin
1857 Schiffsjungen TS
14.11.1860 deleted
6.12.1860 sold Friedrich Heyn, Danzig for 11950 Thaler 296CL=521 dwt = 443nrt ; 16men
Dec. 1862 sank 40sm W Jaerland , voy Liverpool-Danzig , saltz, crew salvaged

Gröner
650grt 43,25/38,16x43,25/38,16x9,20x2,80m
9kts
1862 BU Danzig (?)

Sa 3 bledy z Grönera poprawione, nie mam dkladnej daty zatoniecia .

AvM pisze:Mercur corvette
22.7.1847, J.W,.Klawitter, Danzig:
Dec. 1862 sank 40sm W Jaerland , voy Liverpool-Danzig , saltz, crew salvaged

Gröner
650grt 43,25/38,16x43,25/38,16x9,20x2,80m
9kts
1862 BU Danzig (?)

Sa 3 bledy z Grönera poprawione, nie mam dkladnej daty zatoniecia .

Fregattenschiff der Preußischen Seehandlung, Transportschiff, Schulschiff
Informacja o zatonięciu wydaje się byc błędna, odsyłam do trzech autorów, bo został skreślony z listy floty i pocięty na złom i deski w Gdańsku. Powodzenia

Glasisch pisze:

AvM pisze:Mercur corvette
22.7.1847, J.W,.Klawitter, Danzig:
Dec. 1862 sank 40sm W Jaerland , voy Liverpool-Danzig , saltz, crew salvaged

Gröner
650grt 43,25/38,16x43,25/38,16x9,20x2,80m
9kts
1862 BU Danzig (?)

Sa 3 bledy z Grönera poprawione, nie mam dkladnej daty zatoniecia .

Fregattenschiff der Preußischen Seehandlung, Transportschiff, Schulschiff
Informacja o zatonięciu wydaje się byc błędna, odsyłam do trzech autorów, bo został skreślony z listy floty i pocięty na złom i deski w Gdańsku. Powodzenia

A ja mam rejestry pruskie

Ewidentnie sprzedany Heynowi za sume ktora podanlem, potem w rejescie 1861
Zeby bylo ciekawie tez jako "Pink" , tez w rejestrach 1853 i 1857 , wlasciciel Kgl.P.Marine., Berlin .

Gorzej na razie sie sprawa przedstawia z "Elbe", bo jeszcze nie mam losow.

Hansa steam paddle corvette
20.08.1847 William H. Webb , New York #
2 side level 750nhp by T.F.Secor Co., New York, 4 return flue boilers (12psi) or Secor &
Brainstedt coal 45t per day 800-900t coal
1857grt Passengers: 100 I class 50 II class
United States Black Ball Line, New York
26.2.1848 trials the East River
8.4.1858 maiden voyage Bew York-Liverpool
17.2.1849 purchased by Budesflotte at New York
Webb converted her into warship with assistance of Brooklon Navy Yard
- removed the uppermost of the hull's three decks
- cut gun ports in the sides
- armed 3-10in (25cm) pivot 8-8in (20cm) howitzers
31.5.1849 New York still under American flag
ca 21 hours after leaving NY struck shoal of Nantucket in consequence of a defect to the compass, remained ashore for 4 hours
16.6.1849 arrived Liverpool, to completed and she was renamed Hansa
16.3.1853 W.A.Fritze & Co Bremen ( Carl Lehmkuhl, was the companion)
rebuit as passenger steamer
29.8.1853-20.9.1853 Bremerhaven-NY with 507 passengers (or 30.
2.10.1853-20.10.1853 NY-Bremerhaven with 20 passengers (or 3.10)
29.10.1853-17.11.1853 Bremerhaven-NY with 359 assengers
29.11.1853-23.12.1853 NY- Bremerhaven (perhaps wrong ?)
laid up for winter
21.7.1854 -5.8.1854 Bremerhaven-NY with 659 passengers
25.8.1854-10.9.1854 NY- Bremerhaven with 61 passengers
22.9.1854 - 8.10.1854 Bremerhaven-NY with 700 passengers
17.10.1854- 3.11.1854 NY- Bremerhaven with 35 passengers
11.1854 laid up at Bremerhaven for winter
1855 transporter Crimea War No.. 206 3 £ per ton & month
7.3.1855 engaged
24.3.1855 left Thames
30.3.1855 - 19.4.1855 Portsmouth to Marseilles (Gibraltar, Malta, Corfu)
23.4.1855 - 1.5.1855 Marseilles - Constantinople (took stores from Malta)
12.7.1855 - 28.7.1855 Constantinople - Portsmouth
1.8.1855 - 22.8.1855 refitting, out of pay
30.7.1855 - 10.9.1855 Liverpool -Malta (Called at Gibraltar to disembark troops)t
12.9.1855 - 25.9.1855 Malta - Portsmouth (2 days at Gibraltar)
27.9.1855 discharged
18.11.1855 returned to owners at Bremerhaven
new boilers and engine modified in London
9.4.1856 arrived NY 505 passengers
7.5.1856 left New York,with 93 passengers , arrived Bremerhaven after 17 days
7.1856 after 4 voyages laid up at Bremerhaven
9.4.1857 - 2.5.1854 Bremerhaven for New York with 516 passengers
7.5.1857- 24.5.1857 NY- Bremerhaven with 75 passengers
1857 transporter India uprising HEICo charter
10.10.1857 arrived Cowes in charter of HEICo
19.5.1858 Indian Empire Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, Galway
registered for J. O. Lever, London ON21580
2201grt 1387nrt 249.5x39.5x30.4ft
13.6.1858 left Southampton
19.6.1858 Galway to New York
23.7.1858 NY-Galway in 13 days
9.8.1858 arrived Southampton to be docked and repaired
28.9.1858 left Galweay for NY , due to fuel shortage , was forced to put into Newport, Rhode Island
14.10.1858 arrived NY 355 passengers
23.10.1858 NY- arrived 26.11. Broadhaven, Irland due to coal shortage
1862 T. F. Barlow, London (reported owned by Z.C.Pearson, Hull)
sent to Thames for repairs
23.7.1861 off Depford on anchor cut fire was badly gutted
sunken wreck was raised
laying in Victoria Dock
4.5.1866 sank after sprang a leak

Erzherzog Johann paddle frigate
4.1840 John Wood , Port Glasgow
2 side level 440nhp/740ihp by Robert Napier, Glasgow #68, 4 boilers 37/40 t per day 640t coal
21.7.40 Acadia British and North American R.M.S.P. Co.
1136grt 613nrt 202.9x30.7x17'1" dr.

4.8.1840 -17.8.1840 Liverpool - Boston 18days
10.6.1840 Boston -Liverpool
17.10.1840 arrived Boston 12days 12hours
1.11.1840 Boston -Liverpool
21.12..1840 Boston 17days 0hours
------------------------
1840 - 3 trips

1.2.1841 Boston -Liverpool
7.4.1841 arrived Boston 18days 12hours
2.3.1841 Boston -Liverpool
2.6.1841 arrived Boston 13days 12hours
16.6.1841 Boston -Liverpool
2.8.1841 arrived Boston 12days 12hours
16.8.1841 Boston -Liverpool
5.10.1841 arrived Boston 16days 0hours
16.10.1841 Boston -Liverpool
7.12.1841 arrived Boston 18days 12hours
16.12.1841 Boston -Liverpool
------------------------
1841 - 5 trips

21.5.1842 arrived Boston 16days 8hours
1.6.1842 Boston -Liverpool
21.7.1842 arrived Boston 15days 6hours
1.8.1842 Boston -Liverpool
18.9.1842 arrived Boston 14days 0hours
1.10.1842 Boston -Liverpool
17.11.1842 arrived Boston 12days 12hours
2.12.1842 Boston -Liverpool
------------------------
1842 - 4 trips

19.2.1843 arrived Boston 20days 12hours
2.2.1843 Boston -Liverpool
1.6.1843 arrived Boston 15days 6hours
16.6.1843 Boston -Liverpool
2.8.1843 arrived Boston 14days 0hours
16.8.1843 Boston -Liverpool
3.10.1843 arrived Boston 13days 3hours
16.10.1843 Boston -Liverpool
6.12.1843 arrived Boston 17days 0hours
16.12.1843 Boston -Liverpool
------------------------
1843 - 5 trips

21.4.1844 arrived Boston 17days hours
1.5.1844 Boston -Liverpool
19.6.1844 arrived Boston 14days 12hours
1.7.1844 Boston -Liverpool
18.8.1844 arrived Boston 14days 0hours
1.9.1844 Boston -Liverpool
20.10.1844 arrived Boston 16days 0hours
1.11.1844 Boston -Liverpool
21.12.1844 arrived Boston 16days 12hours
1.1.1844 Boston -Liverpool
------------------------
1844 - 5 trips

2.7.1845 arrived Boston 13days 0hours
16.7.1845 Boston -Liverpool
19.12.1845 arrived Boston 14days 12hours
1.1.1845 Boston -Liverpool
------------------------
1845 - 2 trips

4.11.1846-19.11.1846 Liverpool - Boston
------------------------
1846 - 1 trip

------------------------
1847 - 1 trip

10.6.1848 arrived New York

4.11.1848 Liverpool - Boston
------------------------
1848 - 5 trips

33 voyages

9.3.1849 sailed Liverpool - Bremen
12.3.1849 grounded near Terschelling Island, Holland, on her passage to Bremen
now as warship 370t coal
16.3.1853 Germania W.A.Fritze & Co, Bremen (Carl Lehmkuhl, was a companion)
rebuilt as passenger steamer
1,8,1853 26.8.1853 Bremen.-New York with 215 passengers (or 2.
19.9.1853 -8.10.1853 New York- Bremenhaven
21,10,1853 19.11.1853 Bremen.-New York with 327 passengers
2nd voyage renewed damaged wheels in Halifax
3.12.1853 -1.1.1854 New York- Bremenhaven with 30 passengers
15,6,1854 10.7.1854 Bremrhaven -New York with 380 passengers
20.7.1854 -8.8.1854 New York- Bremenhaven with 39 passengers
28,8,1854 21.9.1854 Bremen.-New York with 414 passengers
4.10.1854 -24.10.1854 New York- Bremenhaven with 30 passengers (or 3.
10.1854 laid up at Bremenhaven for winter
4 voyages
1855 transporter Crimea War No..207 3 P per ton & month 880grt 460nhp
7.3.1855 engaged
30.3.1855 - 20.4.1855 Devenport - Constantinople
16.5.1855 - 5.6.1855 Constantinople - Portsmouth
19.6.1855 - 8.7.1855 Plymouth - Constantinople (1day Malta discharging troops)
17.7.1855 - 5.8.1855 Constantinople - Portsmouth (2 days Malta , 1 Gibraltar)
6.9.1855 - 27.9.1855 Deval - Constantinople (1 day Malta , 1 Gibraltar)
13.10.1855 - 30.11.1855 Constantinople - Portsmouth (sailed 7 days Malta - Corfu-Malta)
3.12.1855 discharged
10.1857 offered as transporter India uprising HEICo charter, not accepted
1858 sold to Marks, Greewich
1858 scrapped London

Barbarossa paddle firgate
5.2.1840 R. Duncan & Co. , Greenock
1155grt 619nrt 203.7 (deck) x 31.8 (amidship) x16'5"
2 side level 72in x 6ft1ßin by Robert Napier & Sons, Vulcan Foundry, Glasgow #67 440nhp= 9kts, coal 38t per day wheels 28ft5in 16rpm
18.6.40 Britannia British & North American R. M. S. P. Co, Glasgow
4.7.1840 maiden voyage
17.9.1840 Boston
3.11.1840 Boston
22.2.1841 Boston
6.5.1841 Boston
3.7.1841 Boston
2.9.1841 Boston
7.11.1841 Boston
4.9.1846 Boston, Massachusetts
17.5.1847 Liverpool to Boston
18.11.1848 last voyagr Liverpool-Halifax-Boston
40 voyages
converted in Liverpool into warship
- mizen mast take out
- saloons take off the deck to make room for armament
- paddle box rgangways removed , with the exception of the midship ones
12.3.1849 Liverpool-Bremem
1852 Wachtschiff Danzig
1865 engines sold as scrap iron
1865 Accommodation hulk (Wohnhulk) Kiel
5.5.1880 deleted
28.7.1880 sang as a target ship by SMS Zieten
refloated and scrapped

INDIAN CHIEF brig
1820 James and John Chaffey,, Indian Island
127 ton
1825 sold to Chas Hathaway

1826 July 24— brig Indian Chief, Hutton, (for) St. Andrews (N.B.)

Quebec 1827
June 12 brig Indian Chief R. Stewart 24 April Falmouth, Jamaica to Finlay & Co. / rum & sugar

Vesta screw steam launch
1857, Janßen & Schmilinsky, Hamburg #1
10,36 x 1,83 m; 3 ihp = 7 kts
1857 A. Krüß, Hamburg;
1859 purchased for oppPrussian East Asia expedition , taken on board of transport Elbe
2.1862 gift .to the Siam. Prince

Alexandria paddle iron yacht
6.1844 1844, Masch.bau-Anst. d kgl. Seehandlung Moabit:
71 t, 39,71 x 4,2(7,44)m x o,85 m (depth).;
oscillating 2 cyl SE 32 nnhp=8,5 kts by builders , wheels 3,35m
24.6.1844 kgl. Seehandlung , Moabit bei Berlin
5.11.1849 Royal yacht (Freiedrich Wilhelm IV) stationed in Potsdam
1887 Anna Benz, Rathenow, rebuit into a tug
1929 Bruno Strache, Küstrin,
1944/45 still extant

Z 1849 roku mam pomiary dla Britannia
wg starej metody pomiarow
115grt 716nrt 206ft 9in (aloft) x 34ft 2in (beam)
wg nowej
1155 grt 619nrt 203.7 (deck) x 31.8 (amidship) x22,2 (depth of hold)

tak tylko dla przypomnienie jak sie czasami bezsenownie przepisuje dane

Te statki, bylo zbudowane, jako padsazey, przerobione na wojenne, a potem znowu na pasaterskie, Chzyli trzeba podac 3 razy dane w zasadzie :-O

Miasto brema poniwewaz kszty przebudaowy byly duze, w iedzyczasie wszly przepisy ze pomiszczenia dla pasazerow maja miec najmniej 6 stop, zreszygnowalo z oplat (podatkow) dla statkow Fritza.

Propeller iron screw cargo ON 5505
1855 T.D.Marshall,. South Shields
659grt 457nrt 184.0x27.8x16.5ft
120nhp by Humphrys & Pearson, Hull
1855 W. S. Andrews ,London
1858 chartered by Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company (Galway Line) for one voyage
21.8.1858 Galway-Boston
1858 North of Europe S. N. Co, London.
16.7.1858 J. O. Lever, London
1860 R. Ford, London
1861 sold to German Government renamed Roland
26.2.1861 Roland H.J.Perlbach , Hamburg reported bought from Lever
617grt 187CL 475ihp
1864 Hero Lawson, Hull
1865 Roland H.J.Perlbach , Hamburg
1899 Kirsten, Hamburg
1899 scrapped (approx)

Ciekawi mnie , skad ten niemicki rzad sie wzial ?

ss ROLAND RBCS
1855 T. D. Marshall, Shields #48
187 Lasten zu 6000 Pfund‑561 to zu 1000 KG
610/410 1728/1161 -
­57,88‑8,90‑4,96 m
Verb. 660x1219/762 475 2 4,57 ?
Humphreys & Pearson, Hull nicht bekannt 19
über die erste Vortriebsanlage liegen keine Angaben vor
2 4,3 193
1883 J. Empson & Co., Hamburg (September 1884)

"Propeller" Lever, London (GBR).
26.2.1861 "Roland" H. J. Perlbach & Co., Hamburg (DEU).
1864 "Hero" Lawson, Hull (GBR).
1865 "Roland" wie 1861 (DEU),
Oktober 1899 (31.12.1891) Adolph Kirsten
KR. 21.10.1905 ver­kauft zum Abbruch an R. H. Neugebauer in Hamburg, dieser wird bereits im Juli 1904 aus Moorburg gemeldet.

Udale mi sie troche transatlantyckich podriozy znalesc.
Warto popatrzec od 12 do 22 dni.
Podalem tez zapasy bunkru i zapotrzebowanie dzienne.

avm

Pearson V. The Commercial Union Insurance Company.—Nov. 18,19, and 24.

Ship—Insurance against fire—Liberty to go into dry dock —Destruction in transitu.

A fire policy effected on a steam ship, " lying in the Victoria Docks," gare her " liberty to go into dry dock, ami light her boiler fires once or twice" during the currency of the policy. Adjoining the Victoria Docks was a dry dock; but the entrance being too small to admit the vessel, she was towed to (mother dock two miles higher up the river. This she entered by removing the lower part of her paddle-wheels. What the completion of her repairs was nearly effected, she moored in the river, on her way back to the Victoria Docks, to finish off and refix her paddle-wheels. These might have been put on in the Victoria Docks, but at greater expense, and the practice of putting them on outside was usual. While this was going on, she was entirely destroyed by fire:—Held, that the vessel was not covered by the policy while lying in the river.

Action on a policy of insurance against fire on tho steam ship Indian Empire, tried before Erie, C. J., at tho Sittings after Trinity Term, 1863.

The policy was for 10,000?., on payment of 21/. 5s. premium, from tho 14th May, 18G2, until tho 16th August, 1862, "on the hull of tho steam ship Indian Empire, with her tackle, furniture, and stores on board belonging, lying in tho Victoria Bocks, London, with liberty to go into dry dock, and light the boiler fires once or twice during tho currency of this policy "

The declaration set out the policy, and alleged, that whilst it was in force the ship and premises were destroyed by fire.

The defendants pleaded, that at the time when tho said ship was destroyed, it was not in tho Victoria Bocks, nor in any dry dock within tho meaning of the policy, nor on tho way to or from any such dry dock, nor in tho course of lighting tho boiler fires; nor did the said destruction occur by reason of any such fighting of fires, and that the loss did not happen while the said ship, &c. were covered or protected by tho policy.

It appeared that The Indian Empire, at tho time tho policy was effected, was lying in tho Victoria Bocks, and that in connexion with the docks are tho Thames Graving Bocks, both of which are supplied with numerous appliances for putting out fires. Tho Thames Graving Bocks are not strictly dry docks, but thoy answer the purpose of dry docks, the ships being raised out of the water by means of pontoons, and so giving access to their bottoms. But the entrance to these docks was too narrow to admit The Indian Empire, even with her paddle-boxes removed. In consequence of this, the vessel was towed by a tug to other docks (Lungley's Docks), about two miles higher up the river, which she was able to enter after the removal of her paddle-wheels. She remained there undergoing repairs from the 18th May till the 12th July, when she was taken out, and moored in the river, a little way off. Here she was proceeding to complete her repairs, and to refit her paddle-wheels, when she was totally consumed by fire. It appeared also, that it was not unusual to fix the paddle-wheels outside the docks; that though they might have been refixed in the Victoria Docks, tho expense of so doing would have been considerably greater than to do the work in tho river; and, in the opinion of some witnesses, that the danger of destruction by fire in the docks was at least equal to the danger in the river, by reason of the crowded state of the shipping.

The jury found, that the vessel intended to return to the Victoria Docks, and they gave their verdict in favour of the plaintiff.

A rule nisi having been obtained to entor a nonsuit, on the ground, that upon the true construction of the policy, the vessel was not covered at the time of the loss,

Bovill, Q. C, and Wotkin Williams shewed cause, and contended that the vessel was not restricted to the dry docks in connexion with the Victoria Docks, but, being at liberty to go to others, she was covered by the policy in her transit to and from them, provided the usual course were adopted, and that the evidence shewed that the usual course had been adopted.

Lush, Q. C, Kurslake, Q. C, and Sir G. LTonyman, in support of the rule, urged that the liberty to go into dry dock was confined to the docks at hand, docks to get into which there was no other than dock risk; or if the vessel was entitled to go to others, she was not entitled to lie in the river, but was bound to return to the Victoria Docks to complete her repairs, and refix her paddle-wheels. They referred to Burges v. Wickham (33 L. J., Q. B., 17; anto, p. 92).

Nov. 24.—Ekle, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the Court.—This was an action on a policy, by which the ship was insured against loss by fire during three months. The ship was described to be lying in the Victoria Docks, with liberty to go into dry dock, and to light her boiler fires once or twice. She was burnt within the throe months; and the question before us has been whether, at tho timo she was burnt, she was covered by that policy.

The circumstances which existed at the time the policy was made, relative to its construction, and the circumstances attending the loss relative to the application of that construction to the loss, appeared to be as follows:—Tho ship was lying in the Victoria Docks, and was to be repaired in a dry dock. The Thames Graving Dock, in which the ships were lifted by pontoons, so as to be dry, was adjoining to the Victoria Docks, but tho width of this ship prevented her from going into this pontoon dock. Lungley's Dry Dock, distant about two miles up the Thames from the Victoria Docks, was the nearest that could receive the ship conveniently; and, for the purpose of entering thore, it was necessary to remove the lower half of the paddle-wheels. This was done in the Victoria Docks; aud the parts of the wheels were deposited in a barge there, and the ship was towed up to Lungley's Dock, and tho necessary repairs were nearly completed there in tho course of two months, Then the ship

was towed down to the Government buoy off Dentford, within 600 or 700 yards of the Victoria Dock, and moored there for the purpose of having the pans of the paddle-wheels replaced there. The utmost despatch was used in performing this work; and it wy nearly completed in ten days. While this was heim done, other work was in progress in order to make th< ship fit for sea; but there was no delay on this I4 count, and nothing turned on this work. Then thi ship was burnt at her moorings.

The evidence shewed that it was usual with tti great shipbuilders in the Thames, for ships of gred width, which had taken off the half of their paddls wheels for the purpose of going into dry docks, to I in the Thames after coming out, while the parts q the paddle-wheels were being replaced; and that tU mooring of the plaintiff's ship in the river while ill process was performed was according to the won usually followed by them in respect of ships wu paddle-wheels had been in like manner, and for n same purpose, removed. The evidence further shew that the plaintiff's ship might have been taken bad into the Victoria Docks without being moored in ili Thames, and that the paddle-wheels might have b« replaced in those docks, but that the expense of B work in the docks would have been four time great as it was in the river.

It was said that the work could be more cann niently performed in the Thames than in the docin but this was not explained to have any meam't;; l» yond the expense.

The evidence further shewed, that in the Victim Docks there were very careful precautions to prevent damago by fire—watchmen at all hours, numerous fire brigado always ready, policemen and ote »j vants of the company trained to the use ot fai engines, and carpenters ready to scuttle a ship on firt together with an ample water supply from stand pipd in many places; while in the river, it was said, there were only three floating engines, placed at siderable distances from each other, and that nearly hour elapsed between the breaking out of the fite the arrival of the first of these engines.

There was evidence, that in offices of great portance, such as the Sun and the Phoenix, the mium was the same whether the ship lay in the rm or a dock. But in these offices the same rate M been continued from a far distant time: and tie* fendants objected, with good reason, as we thinM their rights under this contract wero notbe*"* by the rights of parties under other contact*" other companies.

These being the facts, the defendants ■ that the ship was not covered by the policy»' timo of the loss, on three grounds—first beeaia* ship was not lying in the Victoria Docks, or in * * dock adjoining thereto; secondly, because was not in any dock; and, thirdly, because was not in a dock nor in transit from a dock to within the meaning of the policy.

As to the first aud second grounds, the di contended that the words " lying in the Victoria with liberty to go into dry dock," confined t either to the Victoria Docks and the dry dock ing thereto, or to the Victoria Docks and dock, and excluded the risk in the transit dock to another. But in respect of these gro' think that the defendants failed. As to ground, the words of the policy do not cxr the liberty is confined to any particular dryd' although it is probable that both parties exp« tho pontoon dock would be used, and neitl knew that the relative admeasurements of the & that dock would prevent the adoption of tM «■ still effect is to be given to the words in their ordinary meaning, and the liberty to go into dry dock is unre Kricted in expression. If the defendants intend to confine the liberty to the pontoon dock only, they most express their intention more clearly.
[graphic]

As to the second ground, if the plaintiff had liberty

to resort to any convenient dry dock, we think the

policy covered the ship while the plaintiff used the

Hberty so given to him thereby. The description is

in the nature of a condition; the defendants insure

rea months, provided the ship is in the situation

^■astioned in the policy; that is, in either dock, or in

'Ike necessary passage from the one to the other.

• We are aware, that under this construction the

^■aiatiff would be uninsured as to all risk from col

Hpon or the like in the river during transit, and that

the defendants would take an undefined liability in

<be river if the plaintiff might choose a dry dock

Sfc an undefined distance from the Victoria Docks.

But notwithstanding these considerations, we are

Bought to the construction above stated, and decide

^^Ht the defendants on the first two grounds on

which they relied.

As to the third ground above stated, we think that Hp defendants are entitled to succeed. We think that ihe ship was not in a dock, nor in transit from a . hi dock within the meaning of the policy. We JDsda tint the risk contemplated by both parties was *Wickly the risk of fire in a dock; and although fie defendants are held, by implication, to have undertaken so much risk in the river as was essential for the exercise of the liberty of transit from dock to bet, yet this risk in the river is limited to that transit, and does not, in our judgment, extend to any time ming which the ship stopped in the river, not for the ^^■poK of that transit. A few hours were all that rcrald have been required for that purpose. The der of ten days was for the purpose of replacing the idle-wheels; and there was no proof that they could ^Hpve been replaced, as well for the ship, although ith more expense, in the docks where they were taken E, and were left till the ship returned. The risk in the ■•t appears much greater than in the docks, by rea^Hithe absence of many appliances to secure against

» wkch were available in the docks. ^Hapkintiff placed much reliance on the fact above biad,that it was usual with the great shipbuilders, *r repairing such ships as the plaintiff's, to replace hi paddle-wheels in the river. But the question here pend on the course of business usual with but upon the contract of these parties, prepared for sea in the dock of a shippier in all respects, except the paddle-wheels, tho B|of which is of necessity postponed, in order that v pass out of the dock, it might well be tho a* and cheapest course for the ship to lie at a con^■t place in the river to receive those wheels, and ^■Boceed on her voyage. Time and money would Hubly be wasted by sending her into another dock. his contract the insurance is confined by press terms to the docks; and though it is exI by implication to tho necessary passage from ";to the other, there is no implication that it i made to extend to lying in the river for any I repair. The paddle-wheels were not csscn: purpose of moving the ship into the docks, i power which brought her to her moorings taken her on to tho docks. According to struction, the ship was not covered unless she bcV directly from one dock to the other. She did *» pass, but was delayed ten days; and this delay owing to any cause connected with the pasl& It follows, that during those ten days the de«ti were not liable.
[graphic]

The rule, therefore, for entering a verdict for the defendants, or a nonsuit, must be mado absolute.— Rule absolute for a nonsuit.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

HILARY TERM.

Altona iron paddle tug
1847 Ditchburn
32 CL
64nhp
19.5.1847 Altona-Harburger Dampfschifffahrts-gesellschaft ,Altona
1848 by Slevig-Holstein goverment awith 3 barges offered to transport troops
28.11.1850 agian in service
1851 offered for sale not sold
1852 kgl. P. Seehandlung, Berlin (service ?)
1852 sold

Tagebuch des zehnten Deutschen Bundes-Armee-Corps unter ...

Louis Heinrich Friedrich von Sichart von Sichartshoff - 1851 - ‎Lesen - ‎Mehr Ausgaben
Zur eventuellen Ueberschiffung von Truppen stellte auch die Schleswig -Holsteinsche Provisorische Regierung das Altonaer Dampfschiff Altona — von 64 Pferdekraft — mit 3 Schleppkähnen und 1 Ever zur Disposition. In Hannover wurde