Agreeing with the assessors, this Court is of opinion that the masters and officers did not realise the density of the haze (it completely fooled them, in other words), and the northerly set the master had expected he failed to realise.

This Court looks to the work put in by the master, which, according to his light, sees to exculpate him and officers of any wrongful act or default in term of Section 9, Act V., of 1883. This Court finds, however, "an error of judgment," which, in the words of Mr. Norwood's evidence before the Royal Commission of 1873, is " really and fairly a sea risk." This Court finds no "gross carelessness," and while admitting that " an error of judgment " may be culpable, sees no culpability attaching to the present case.