added Romer L.J. in his judgment, "has been settled by a long series of cases which show that the plaintiffs' [the shipowners'] duty was complete when they delivered over the ship's rail." See also the Irish and Scottish cases of Langham v. Gallagher (1911), 12 Asp. M.C., 118, and Ballantyne v. Paton (1912), S.C., 246.

Liability in Canada before Loading.-As already remarked in discussing the definition of "carriage of goods" in the Rules, the rights and obligations of the parties before loading and after unloading may be governed by contract or by local laws and conditions. It may perhaps be noted here as an incidental point of local law that in Canada there is (in addition to the Water Carriage of Goods Act set out in Appendix II.) a provision in Section 963 of the Canada Shipping Act, Chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, that: "Carriers by water shall be responsible not only for goods received on board their vessels, but also for goods delivered to them for conveyance by any such vessel, and they shall be bound to use due care and diligence in the safe-keeping and punctual conveyance of such goods, subject to the provisions hereinafter made." By subsequent sections the liability of carriers by water is subjected to the exception of loss or damage from certain causes beyond their control, and they are freed from liability for articles of great value unless declared. The effect of this legislation is not altogether clear. "Carriers by water" do not seem to be defined. Possibly the statutory provision applies only in the absence of conditions specifically agreed.

Stowage. "By the maritime law," said Willes J. in

Blaikie v. Stembridge (1859), 6 C.B.N.S., 894, “in the absence of custom or agreement to the contrary, it is the duty of the master, on the part of the owner, to receive and properly stow on board the goods to be carried; which, ordinarily, are to be delivered to him alongside. For any damage to the goods occasioned by negligence in the performance of such duty, the owner is liable to the shipper.... This duty of the master has, however, in many cases been modified by custom or contract."

"The stowage of goods," said Cockburn C.J. in Sandeman v. Scurr (1866), L.R., 2 Q.B., 86, “in the absence of any special agreement, forms part of the obligation which the carrier takes upon himself. It is a duty to be discharged by the master and crew." In the same case it was further held that the employment of a stevedore made no difference as regarded the shipper, as he was no party to the employment, and had a right to look to the shipowner for the safe stowage of the goods, as part of the carrier's duty, in the absence of any special agreement.

It should be observed, however, that "though the master ought to be skilful in the matter of stowing ships, that is to be construed reasonably; and mere ignorance of the effect of stowing particular kinds of goods together will not be imputed to him as negligence, unless as a competent person he would reasonably be expected to know it" (Carver, p. 378).

Moreover, if goods are such that they are liable to cause injury to other goods, it is the duty of the shipper to notify that fact (see Article IV., clause 6, and Note on Dangerous Goods, p. 86).

Description and Shipment of Goods.

Clauses 3 to 5 of Article III. provide for the issue of a bill of lading showing

(a) The leading identification marks of the goods, and

(b) The number, or quantity or weight as furnished in writing by the shipper, and also

(c) The apparent order and condition of the goods.

The bill of lading is (except in certain special cases referred to later in this note) declared to be "prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described "—those are the important words—and the shipper is to be deemed to have guaranteed the accuracy of the description, marks, number, quantity, or weight furnished by him. If inaccuracy in these particulars gives rise to any claim, the shipper will be bound to indemnify the carrier.

In considering these provisions of the Rules it must be remembered that, under clause 8 of the same Article, any clause lessening the carrier's liability otherwise than as provided in the Rules is of no effect.

Bill of Lading Prima Facie Evidence of Shipment.The ordinary rule of English law is that a bill of lading is prima facie evidence that the goods to which it refers were shipped. That is to say, the carrier is bound to deliver the full amount of goods signed for by the shipmaster in a bill of lading unless he can prove that the whole or some part of it was in fact not shipped (Smith v. Bedouin (1896), A.C., 70). By French law a bill of

lading is conclusive evidence against the carrier of the receipt of the goods (Elder, Dempster v. Dunn (1909), 15 Com. Cas., 49).

By incorporating the Hague Rules in a bill of lading, therefore, the parties expressly agree that the contract between them shall be on the same basis as that of the English law. In practice, however, the rule of English law has frequently been made inapplicable to contracts by the insertion in bills of lading of words such as "quantity or weight unknown," preventing the documents from being prima facie evidence that the quantity or weight mentioned was shipped (see New Chinese Co. v. Ocean (1917), 2 K.B., 664). Any such qualifying clause will apparently not now be admissible if the particulars in question are in fact furnished in writing by the shipper and if the bill of lading incorporates the Hague Rules, or, if such a clause is inserted, it will be of no effect, because it would lessen the carrier's liability.

It will be noticed on a careful reading of the Rules that the description which the shipper is required to furnish is limited to the marks, number, quantity or weight, and does not necessarily include the nature and value of the goods. Nature and value may be declared, and questions may arise upon that, but they are discussed later under Article IV., clause 4. The present point is that a declaration of nature and value is not obligatory, and, in view of this, it would seem that, though the Rules prevent the carrier from inserting qualifying words as to quantity or weight, he will still be able to include "value and contents unknown" in a bill of lading. Apparently the clause "quality unknown" will also be

effective if inserted. The description is to include the apparent order and condition of the goods, but it has been held that "quality unknown" does not modify "shipped in good order and condition" (Compania v. Churchill (1906), 1 K.B., 237. See also Martineaus v. Royal Mail (1912), 17 Com. Cas., 176).

It should be noted in passing that by the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, Section 3, "Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee or indorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods to have been shipped on board a vessel, shall be conclusive evidence of such shipment as against the master or other person signing the same, notwithstanding that such goods or some part thereof may not have been so shipped, unless the holder of the bill of lading shall have had actual notice at the time of receiving the same that the goods had not been in fact laden on board. Provided, that the master or other person so signing may exonerate himself in respect of such misrepresentation by showing that it was caused without any default on his part, and wholly by the fraud of the shipper, or of the holder, or some person under whom the holder claims." Though the "person signing" includes a person for whom a clerk or servant signs, this expression does not include the shipowner when the shipmaster or broker signs, and accordingly a bill so signed is not conclusive against a shipowner (Grant v. Norway (1851), 10 C.B., 665; Thorman v. Burt (1886), 54 L.T. Rep., 349).

Provisions similar to those quoted from the Act of 1855 are contained in the Canada Bills of Lading Act (Chapter 118 of the Revised Statutes, 1906).