there never would be a port in the ordinary business sense of the word, unless there was some element of safety in it for the ship and goods, and that nothing was more certain to be such a port than a natural port. That a natural port was "a place in which the conformation of the land with regard to the sea is such, that if you get your ship within certain. limits, she is in a place of safety for loading and unloading." That any particular spot at which loading and unloading took place might be safely inferred to be within "the port," as understood by the parties; as, although the place of loading and unloading of goods was not always the exact measure of a port, it was a safe rule to say that the loading and unloading took place within the port. That beyond the place of loading and unloading, the port would extend to any further space over which the port authorities were in the habit of exercising "Port discipline." Applying these rules His Lordship held, that both on the conformation of the land, and the evidence as to the action of the port authorities, the accident had happened within the port, but he declined to say how much further the port of Cardiff extended, and whether or no it included Penarth Roads.

In the case of the General Steam Navigation Company v. British & Colonial Steam Navigation Company, the Court had to decide the extent of the port of London for pilotage purposes. For this purpose Baron Martin considered the meaning of 'port" generally, and when the case reached the

1 L. R. 3 Ex. 330, 345,

Court of Exchequer Chamber, Byles, J., who delivered the judgment of the Court, said, "The passage from Lord Hale, De Portibus Maris, shews that the limits of a port may depend on the existence of wharves, quays, houses, buildings, and other conveniences. They may accordingly, from time to time vary, and increase with the increase of population and of buildings." Lord IIale further says: "The port of London anciently extended to Greenwich in the time of Edward I., and Gravesend is a member of it." The extent of a port, therefore, after the lapse of years may become a question of fact."3

It has been laid down that the words "port or ports of loading," must be taken to mean not merely those places which are technically called ports, but all places to which ships may be accustomed to resort for the purpose of taking in cargo. Where the question arose as to Laguna de los Padres, a place on the coast of Buenos Ayres, where there was no artificial port, but merely a village, with a wooden jetty, and the vessels calling there had to anchor about a quarter of a mile from the shore in the roadstead, where they were loaded by means of lighters and small craft. The roadstead was protected by natural headlands on either side, which formed a kind of bay, and the anchorage was good, but the place was rather open to the cast and northcast. There was a regular trade between it and Chap. 2 at p. 46.

1 1 L. R. 4 Ex. 238, 245.

3 Abbott on Sh. 545.

Per Lush, J. in Harrower v. Hutchinson, L. R. 4 Q. B. 523,

Buenos Ayres. It was held, that it was a port of loading, to which the vessel was at liberty to go.

In Cockey . Atkinson,' an open roadstead was held to be a port of loading.

In the Alhambra, the question arose whether Lowestoft Roads formed part of the Port of Lowestoft. Orders had been given for the vessel to proceed to Lowestoft to discharge, but the master had refused to go, on the ground that that was not a safe port for his vessel. This was true of Lowestoft Harbour, but not of the Roads. Brett, L. J., said that the vessel should be ordered "to something which is known in sea-faring language as a port," and he held that the order to go to Lowestoft meant Lowestoft Harbour. Cotton, L. J., said:"The roads were not a part of the Port of Lowestoft, and when the charterer ordered the ship to go to Lowestoft, the charter-party only authorizing the ship to be sent to a port, he must have meant to the Port of Lowestoft, and not to Lowestoft Roads."3

The port must be one that is physically safe; Safe Port. whether it is so is a question of fact for the jury, having regard to the particular vessel and the nature of the work to be done.

4

In Smith v. Dart, the question arose whether Burriana, in Spain, was a "safe loading place" under a charter-party for a cargo of oranges. It appeared

1 2 B. & A. 460.

2 L. R. 6 P. D. 68; Sea Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 2'Dow & C. 129.

See Caffarini v. Walker, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 250; Abbott on Sh. 442.

* L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 105.

that the place was much exposed, but that many steamers were loaded there, lying in the roadstead, and that they could do so in safety by using wellknown precautions, such as keeping their fires alight, and, if necessary, running out to sea. The jury found that it was a safe loading place.

Lush, J., in Harrower v. Hutchinson' said:-" The word port or ports of loading I think must be read in a liberal sense; they must be taken to mean not merely those places which are technically called ports, but all places to which ships may be accustomed to resort for the purpose of taking in cargo. The port must be safe for the particular ship laden as she is during the time which will be occupied by her discharge; and where a safe port has been stipulated for, the charterer is not entitled to have the unloading done partly outside and partly inside the port; therefore, it must be one into which she can safely go and lie with all her cargo."

When it is agreed by a charter-party that a ship shall proceed to a "safe port, or as near thereunto as she can safely get, and always lay and discharge afloat," the master is not bound, if ordered to a port which can only be entered by first discharging part of the cargo, to allow such an amount to be taken out as will enable her to enter the port, even if the lighterage can be done in a place and under circumstances which will not expose the vessel to danger; and in such a case evidence that the custom of the port is to lighten vessels, when necessary, before entering the port, is not admissible.

1 L. R. 4 Q. B. 534,

The Alhambra,1 a barque of the burthen of about 467 tons, was chartered at Baltimore to go from that place to Falmouth for orders, and thence to a safe port in the United Kingdom, &c., or "as near thereunto as she could safely get, and always lay and discharge afloat." It was provided also, among other things, that lighterage (if any) should be always at the risk and expense of the cargo. No port was mentioned in the charter-party. On arrival of the ship at Falmouth she was ordered to proceed to Lowestoft, and there discharge the cargo. The Alhambra's draught was such that she could not lie in Lowestoft harbour without taking the ground at low water, unless the greater part of her cargo was discharged. The charterers, however, offered to lighten her sufficiently in Lowestoft Roads, which is a safe unloading place outside the harbour. But the master refused to proceed to Lowestoft on the ground that Lowestoft was not a safe port and proceeded to Harwich.

James, L. J., in delivering judgment said :-"A safe port is a port into which she could safely get, and always lay and discharge afloat.' The question is whether Lowestoft is a port of that kind. Now, it is conceded that Lowestoft is not a port in which a ship of the size and burthen of this ship could safely lay. It appears to me that it is not made a safe port-a port in which the ship can lay with safety and discharge afloat, because there is something outside, some little distance from the port,

'L. R. 6 P. D. 68.