64 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



pnnywas awarded 10,000/. damn. cjes, the Court of Appeal 

 held tliat the jury had beeu rightly directed to take into 

 account the loss of his professional income of 5,000/. a-year. 

 51^ ^^^' And in the "Argentine," the House of Lords held that in 

 awarding damages to a ship which had come in collision 

 with another, tlie fact that the ship could not be repaired 

 in time to fultil a contract for anotlier voyage, and had lost 

 earnings in consequence, liad been properly taken into 

 account. Lord Herschell said: 



The loss of the use of a vessel and of the earnings which wonld 

 ordinarily he derived from its use during the time it is under rei):tir, 

 and therefore uot available for trading ])urposes, is certainly damage 

 "which directly and naturally flows from a collision. 



He then proceeded to explain, what it is not necessary 

 here to consider, that the damages were not limited to the 

 time of actual non repaii-, but that account might be taken 

 of the loss of a voyage previously contracted for, setting 

 oft" against such loss what the ship could have earned by 

 other means, after completion of the repairs, during the 

 time which such voyage would have occupied. 



After due regard has been paid to all considerations, 

 such as the nature of the season, the size and e(pupment 

 of the vessels, and the amount of the catch in previous 

 seasons, an estimate can be formed of the probable catch 

 of each vessel during the season in which their operations 

 were prevented or interfered with. 



The loss of catch is due directly to the action of 

 73 the United States Government, and the fact that 

 the earnings or profits were prospective in no way 

 affects the right of the claimants to recover. 



The refusal of the Geneva Arbitrators to award damages 

 to the United States for the loss of "prospective earnings " 

 must be understood with reference to the actual conditions 

 of the case before them. The shi])s in respect of which the 

 claim was made had been destroyed. Chief Justice Cock- 

 burn, who here was in agreement with the rest of the 

 Tribunal, says in his reasons : 



"North Amer- According to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 

 ica \o. 2 (187;!)," States, the only allowance which ought to be made in respect of pro- 

 Part n, p. 2a3. specti ve catch is in the nature of interest from the time of the destruc- 

 tion of the vessel. 



The distinction is between prospective earnings from a 

 ship destroyed, and tem])orary interruption in the employ- 

 ment of an existing ship. 



With regard to the allegations which are brought for- 

 ward at pp. 130 to 133 of the United States Counter-Case, 

 that is to say, that certain citizens of the United States 

 were interested, as mortgagees or otherwise, in some of the 

 vessels in question. Her Majesty's Government do not 

 admit either the truth of the allegations, or that they are 

 proper for consideration. 



By 17 & 18 Vict., cap. 104, sec. 70, it is enacted as fol- 

 lows : 



A mortgagee shall not by reason of his mortgage he deemed to he 

 the owner of a ship or any share therein, nor shall the mortgagee be 

 deemed to have ceased to be owner of such mortgaged ship or share, 

 except in so far as may he necessary for making such ship or share 

 available as a security for the mortgage debt. 



