F.C. PUSEY V. Ex parte McCawley C.J. After obtaining the permit, appellant made arrangements to I decided not to remove the stock. Was the permit of January, 1921, the permit contemplated by the Act in respect of the travelling of these cattle in August, 1921? The contention of the appellant is that the permit, notwithstanding that it was issued with reference to a notice in which the date of proposed departure is required by law to be specified, and was in fact specified, applied to a travelling of the same stock over the same route at any subsequent date, alternatively that it applies to any departure within a reasonable time period from the issue of the permit, and that the period that had elapsed was not unreasonable. All the section required, so appellant contended, was that the permit must be obtained before starting. We think, however, that the true view of the section is that the permit is a permit applicable only to the proposed departure mentioned in the notice. This proposed departure was in January; no actual departure was made until seven months later. It is a question of fact whether the permit was a permit for the August departure. The Justices must be taken to have found that it was not a permit for the August departure, and we think that their finding is not only reasonable, but the only reasonable one, when regard is had to the object of the permit, the date specified on the notice, the interval between the date specified on the notice and 30th August, and defendant's own admission that the intention which had led to his January notice had long since been abandoned. The appellant relies on ss. 22 and 24 of the Code as constituting a defence. Section 22 does not in terms apply,as this is not an offence in relation to property; nor does s. 24 apply, as the mistake of the appellant in regarding the permit as applicable to the travelling of the stock in August was not a mistake of fact, but a mistake of law. Compare Beetham v. Tremearne (1). F.C. PUSEY V. WAGNER, Ex parte WAGNER. The only other point is whether the complaint discloses an offence against the Act. We think that the evidence in this McCawley C.J. case clearly establishes a violation of s. 18-see s. 30, subsec. 2— and that if there were any variance between the evidence and the complaint it would have been the duty of the Justices to amend. We are, however, of opinion that, even though the form of complaint might preferably have followed more closely the language of s. 18, it substantially describes the offence, and the objections to it are merely technical. We are of opinion that the order nisi should be discharged, with costs against the appellant. Order nisi discharged, with costs. Solicitor for appellant: Atthow & Atthow. Solicitor for respondents: The Acting Crown Solicitor. (1) 1905, 2 C.L.R. 582. L 1922. 21, 25. THE KING v. OWNERS OF S.S. ARGYLLSHIRE. THE ARGYLLSHIRE. Admiralty Collision-Both ships to blame-Ships close together Where two vessels came into collision by reason of negligence on both sides, August 16, 17, 18 which, though not contemporaneous, was yet so closely connected in time and circumstance as not to be clearly severable, both vessels were held to blame, and the damage was apportioned at two-thirds and one-third, and no costs were granted to either party. Macnaughton J. It is the duty of each of two vessels when they come close together, to do whatever is necessary to avoid collision. In estimating the damage caused by a collision, reasonable compensation should be allowed for the services of a vessel acting in the place of a pilot vessel injured by the collision during the time reasonably necessary for effecting repairs. TRIAL OF ACTION. This was an action brought at the instance of the Covernment of Queensland for damages caused to the pilot steamer Matthew Flinders by a collision in Moreton Bay with the s.s. Argyllshire, bound from Brisbane to Sydney. The effect of the preliminary acts, the pleadings, and the evidence, in which each blamed the other wholly for the collision. are sufficiently stated in the judgment. Webb S.G. and Macrossan for the plaintiff. Feez K.C. and Macgregor for the defendants. The following authorities were referred to: The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, SS. 418, 419; The Navigation Act (Commonwealth), 1912, ss. 258, 259, 263; The Khedive (1), The Bywell Castle (2), Admiralty Commissioners v, s.s. Volute (3), THE KING V. S.S. ARGYLLSHIRE. THE ARGYLLSHIRE, Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 23, 24, 27, 28, The The following judgment was read by MACNAUGHTON, J. This is a claim by the Attorney-General Macnaughton J. on behalf of the Queensland Government against the s.s. Argyllshire and her owners for damage caused by the s.s. Argyllshire negligently colliding on the 8th February, 1922, with the s.s. Matthew Flinders, a steamer employed in the pilot service in Moreton Bay. The Argyllshire is a twin-screw steamer of 12,975 tons gross tonnage; 550 feet long, 61 feet broad, 33 feet deep; with a speed of 13 knots. At the time of the collision she was in very light trim, drawing only 15 feet forward and 23 feet 8 inches aft, her draught when loaded being 29 feet 6 inches on an even keel. The Matthew Flinders is a single screw steamship of the gross tonnage of 450 tons; 166 feet long, 29 feet broad, 14 feet deep, with a speed from 10 to 12 knots. At the time of the collision she was drawing 11 feet 7 inches forward and 12 feet 9inches aft, being rather deeper than usual, as she had just taken in water, stores and coal for a month's cruise. The points of negligence charged in the information were :— 1. Failure to delay for a sufficient time to enable the whaleboat of the Matthew Flinders to be picked up by that boat after the pilot was dropped by the Argyllshire. 2. Failure to manoeuvre the Argyllshire into a reasonably safe position in relation to the Matthew Flinders after dropping the pilot and before proceeding to go ahead. 3. Failure to go astern before proceeding to overtake and pass the Matthew Flinders. (1) [1897] A.C. 596. (2) [1907] A.C. 241. (4) 1874, 23 Wall. (U.S.) 20. (8) 1890, Asp. M.L.C. 512. (9) 1898, 79 L.J.P. 21n. (11) [1912] P. 192. (13) 1881, 2 N.S. W. L. R. (Adm.) 1. THE KING ". THE OWNERS OF S.S. ARGYLLSHIRE. THE ARGYLLSHIRE. Macnaughton J. 4. Failure to give the proper or any sound signal to indicate the course taken or proposed to be taken by the Argyllshire after dropping the pilot. 5. Putting the helm of the Argyllshire hard a-port so as to pass the Matthew Flinders on the windward side instead of the leeward side. 6. Failure on the part of the Argyllshire to keep out of the way of the Matthew Flinders. 7. Failure on the part of the Argyllshire to slacken her speed on approaching the Matthew Flinders after dropping the pilot. 8. Failure on the part of the Argyllshire to stop and/or reverse her engines when a collision became imminent, or to take the proper or any steps to keep out of the way of the Matthew Flinders. 9. Failure to stop or put the engines of the Argyllshire full astern when the Argyllshire first collided with the Matthew Flinders. 10. Failure on the part of the Argyllshire to keep a proper or any look-out when overtaking or approaching the Metther Flinders. 11. Generally the doing of such acts as a reasonably prudent navigator would not have done under the circumstances, and the failure to do such acts or observe such precautions as such a prudent navigator would have done or observed. The amended particulars of damage were:Repairs to hull of Matthew Flinders New whaleboat for Matthew Flinders to replace whaleboat totally destroyed Repairs to steering gear Fittings for whaleboat 410 0 0 72 10 0 13 1 8 27 10 0 10 10 0 3 3 0 Marine Surveyor's fee Adjusting compasses of Matthew Flinders 264 12 0 £801 6 8 The defendants, by their plea, after traversing the material allegations in the information, alleged that the collision was solely due to the negligence of the persons in charge of the Matthew Flinders, setting out the following particulars : 3. "When the Pilot's boat was clear and the Argyllshire then lying with her head about North-east by North magnetic was |