to undertake the burden of defending the action, and the summons was adjourned until the 29th March, to enable the defendants to put in their defence. On the 28th March the defendants delivered their statement of defence, paragraph 10 of which was as follows: 10. In the alternative the defendants say that the said collision was due to the negligent and improper navigation of the Rescue, and to the disobedience of those on board of her to the orders of those on board of the Bianca. The adjourned summons came on for hearing before the district registrar on the 29th March, and he, having read the statement of defence, adjourned the summons to the judge in chambers, where the parties were represented by counsel. Roscoe, in support of the summons, for the defendants.-The questions between the defen. dants and the third parties are similar to those between the plaintiffs and defendants. Expense will be saved by the third parties being bound by the decision in this action: The Cartsburn, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 202; 5 P. Div. Benecke v. Frost, 1 Q. B. Div. 419; 34 L. T. Rep. Kennedy, for the plaintiffs, against the summons. -10th paragraph in the statement of claim is embarassing to the plaintiffs. It is obvious from that paragraph that questions not at issue between the plaintiffs and defendants may arise between the defendants and the third parties: Schneider v. Batt, 8 Q.B. Div. 701; 44 L. T. Rep. Horwell v. London General Omnibus Company, Bower v. Hartley, 1 Q. B. Div. 652. W. G. F. Phillimore, for the third parties, opposed the summons and asked to be dismissed from the proceedings. Upon the conclusion of the arguments the judge announced that he would take time to consider and would give judgment in court. April 5.-BUTT, J.-I have looked through the authorities that were cited, and the conclusion to which I have come is, that there are valid reasons why, in the exercise of my discretion, I should decline to give any directions under Order XVI.. r. 21, in this case. Assuming that I have power to give such directions, I see no sufficient reason in this case why, in the face of the plaintiffs' opposition, I should embarrass them and the defendants with any further questions as to the rights and liabilities of the defendants and the third parties inter se. It is probable-to say the least of it-that there will arise in the case (for I have read the pleadings) questions between the defendants and the third parties totally different and distinct from those between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Under these circumstances the third parties, the owners of the steam-tug Rescue, must be dismissed from these proceedings. Upon the application of connsel for the third parties and the plaintiffs, the learned Judge ordered the defendants to pay the costs of all proceedings taken by them to bring in the third parties. [ADM. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Fielder and Sumner. Solicitors for the defendants, W. W. Wynne and Son. Solicitors for the third parties, Toller and Sons. Tuesday, May 1, 1883. (Before BUTT, J.) THE ANNA HELENA. (a) Salvage-Derelict - Default action-Sale before judgment. Where in a salvage action, in which no appearance had been entered, it wis alleged upon affidavit that the ship and cargo were daily deteriorating in value, and that large expenses were being incurred in respect of the charge of the property, and that the plaintiffs hid been in communication with the owners as to a sale, the Court, on motion by the plaintiffs prior to decree, ordered an appraisement and sale of the property. THIS was an unopposed motion by the plaintiffs in a salvage action, in which no appearance had been entered by the defendants, to obtain, prior to decree, an order for the appraisement and sale of the property salved. The action was brought by the owner, master, and crew of the fishing smack John Ellis, against the owners of the Dutch schooner Anna Helena, her cargo and freight, to recover reward for salvage services rendered in Dec. 1882 to the Anna Helena and her cargo, by bringing her into Newcastle derelict, and in a waterlogged condition. The Anna H-lena was placed in the care of the receiver of wreck at Newcastle, in whose charge she had remained until her arrest in this action, when she passed into the custody of the marshal. It being found impossible to settle the amount of salvage out of court, this action was brought on the 17th April 1883 but no appearance had been entered either for ship or cargo. The plaintiffs now applied for the sale of the property salved upon the affi tavit of the owner of the John Ellis, supported by correspondence from the Dutch consul at Newcastle, who represented the owners and underwriters of the Anna Helena. The fifth paragraph of the said affidavit was as follows: 5. I am informed and believe the said vessel and her cargo are daily deteriorating in value, and that large expenses are and have been incurred in respect of the charge of the property, and it is therefore desirable that the same should be realised without delay. May 1-J. P. Aspinall moved the court to order a commission to issue for the appraisement and sale of the Anna Helena and her cargo. BUTT, J.-I think that, although there is no appearance by the defendants, as it is sworn upon affidavit that the property is daily deteriorating, I will under the circumstances order it to be sold before decree. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Clarkson, Greenwell, and Wyles. (a) Reported by J. P. ASPINALL and F. W. RAIKES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. ADM.] Thursday, Nov. 30, 1882. (Before Sir R. PHILLIMORE.) THE FAIRPORT. (a) THE FAIRPORT. Disbursements of master-Maritime lien-Liability -Transfer of ship-Laches-Admiralty Court Act 1861, s. 10. A master of a ship has a maritime lien for his dis bursements made in the service of the ship, and such lien attaches to the ship in the hands of bona fide purchasers without notice of the lien at the time of the purchase, unless it be lost by the laches of the master. Where a master has incurred liability by drawing bills of exchange for goods supplied to the ship, although such liability is not discharged, he has a maritime lien on the ship to the extent of that liability. The act of a master in not compelling payment against his ship for a liability that he has incurred by drawing bills of exchange, because he believes that they will be met by his owners, until he is actually sud upon them himself does not amount to such laches as will forfeit his lien against a purchaser. THIS was an action brought by Edward Stewart Dargie, of Arbroath, the master of the steamship Fairport belonging to the port of Arbroath, against that vessel and her owners intervening for disbursements made on behalf of the vessel whilst the plaintiff was master. The plaintiff indorsed his writ for a claim for disbursements made during the time he was master of the vessel, and claimed 3007. (inclusive of costs). The plaintiff did not deliver any statement of claim, but gave notice in lieu thereof. The defendant's statement of defence was follows: as 1. The plaintiff was at some time prior to the 14th Oct. 1881, master of the steamship Fairport. The owners of the Fairport, while the plaintiff was master, were George Pitcairn Roy, and Peter Smart Roy, and John Swart Roy. 2. The defendants. on the 14th Oct. 1881, purchased for valuable consideration the sixty-four sixty-fourth shares of and in the said vessel the Fairport from the then owners, the said George Pitcairn Roy, and Peter Smart Roy, and John Smart Roy, and the said shares were transferred to them by bills of sale of that date according to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and they were afterwards duly registered as the owners of the Fairport, and are now such owners. 3. The disbursements, if any, made by the plaintiff were made before, and the plaintiff ceased to be her master before the purchase of the Fairport by the defendants. 4. The defendants deny that the plaintiff at any time made such disbursements as claimed, and say, that if he did he was repaid and reimbursed all such disbursements. The plaintiff had joined the vessel as her master in March 1879, and at that time she was owned by Messrs. Roy and Sons of Arbroath. In September 1879 the vessel was sent to Sunderland to take in coal for London, in charge of the plaintiff, who was instructed to communicate with Messrs. Lunham and Co. of London, who were the time charterers of the vessel. The plaintiff brought the vessel to London, and was then instructed by the charterers to proceed on voyages to the Mediterranean and back. Before he started, he was directed by Messrs. Roy and (a) Reported by J. P. ASPINALL and F. W. RAIKES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. [ADM. Sons to pay for the coal, which he took on beard at the different ports at which he called, by bills drawn on Messrs. Lunham and Co. On his outward voyage he called at Gibraltar, took in coal, and drew a bill on Messrs. Lunham and Co., which was by them paid. He took in a further supply at Malta, and on the return journey at Gibraltar, in January 1880, drew bills as before, which also were paid by the charterers. In April 1880 the vessel was again sent out to the Mediterranean in charge of the plaintiff. She called at Gibraltar for coal, and the plaintiff drew a bill on Messrs. Lunham and Co. for 40 14s. This bill was indorsed originally to Murietta and Co. and afterwards to De Mattos and Co., who then became the holders; it was accepted by Messrs. Lunham and Co. but never paid. On the 4th May 1880 the vessel was again at Gibraltar, and a further supply of coal was obtained from Messrs. Longlands, Howell, and Co., and the plaintiff drew a bill for 581. 188. 10d. on Messrs. Lunham and Co., payable to the order of Messrs. Longlands, Howell, and Co. This second bill was indorsed to Messrs. De Mattos and Co., but was not accepted by Messrs. Lunham and Co., who had become insolvent. Messrs. Roy and Sons were applied to, but they refused to pay these two bills, and on the 7th June 1880 (shortly after they had become due) Messrs. De Mattos and Co. commenced proceedings against the plaintiff, The writ was served on the plaintiff in August 1880, and he then went to sea. On the 17th July 1881, whilst he was at sea, judgment was given against him for 1137. 88. 2d. On his arrival in England he took proceedings against the vessel on the 23rd Nov. 1881 to recover the amount of his liability under the bills, and the vessel was arrested in this action. On the 14th Oct. 1881 the vessel was sold by Messrs. Roy and Co. to a Mr. J. J. Wallace and others, who appeared in the action as defendants. Nov. 30.-The action came on for hearing. Barnes for the plaintiff. W. G. F. Phillimore for the defendants. ment. Cur. adv. vult. Dec. 12-Sir R. PHILLIMORE delivered judgment as follows:-This is an action in rem, in which the plaintiff, who was formerly master of the steamship Fairport, seeks to recover a sum of money, for which he has become liable, on two bills of exchange drawn by him whilst he was master in order to provide necessaries for the vessel. The Fairport was owned by Messrs. Roy and Sons of Arbroath, in Scotland. In the spring of 1880 she was chartered by Messrs. Lunham and Co of London, and sent to the Mediterranean with the plaintiff as master. On the 12th April 1880 the plaintiff obtaired coals at Gibraltar for the use of his vessel, and paid for them by drawing a bill for 401. 149. on Lunham and Co. He did this in accordance with his previous practice on similar occasions, and in obedience to instructions received from the charterers and confirmed by Messrs. Roy and Sons, the owners of the vessel. On his return voyage, on the 4th May 1880, he obtained a further supply of coals and other necessaries at Gibraltar, paying for them as before by a bill which he drew on Messrs. Lunham and Co. for 581. 18s. These two bills came into the hands of a Mr. De Mattos, who is still the holder of them. The first bill was accepted by Lunham and Co., the second was not, and Lunham and Co. having shortly after wards become insolvent, neither of the bills was met at maturity, nor have they been subsequently met. Mr. De Mattos, as holder of the dishonoured bills served a writ on the plaintiff as drawer in Aug. 1880, and obtained judgment against him in July 1881 for 1137. 88. 10d., being the amount of the twe bills and costs. This sum has not yet been paid. In Oct. 1881 Messrs. Wallace and Co., the defendants in this action, bought the Fairport from Roy and Sons, and in the following November the plaintiff began the present action in rem to recover the above-mentioned sum of 1131. 88. 10d. with costs. A writ was issued in this court, and the vessel has been arrested. The defence raised by Messrs. Wallace and Co., the present owners, is reducible to the three following propositions, two of law, one of mixed law and fact. The two propositions of law are: 1. That a master's disbursement does not constitute a maritime lien. 2. That even if it does, the subject of the present action is a liability, and not properly a disbursement, the plaintiff as yet having actually paid nothing, and that a mere liability cannot create a maritime lien. 3. The proposition of mixed law and fact is that if there were a maritime lien, the plaintiff is precluded by his own laches from enforcing it against a bond fide purchaser for value. The law as to the first proposition appears to me to be laid down correctly in the judgment of Dr. Lushington in The Mary Anne (L. Rep. 1 Adm. & Eccl. 8; 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 384; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 294), which expressly decides that since the passing of the 10th section of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 a master has a maritime lien for his disbursements. I followed this decision in The Feronia (L. Rep. 2 Adm. & Eccl. 65; 17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 619; 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 54), and I may observe also that it is treated as settled law in the last edition (4th edit.) of the Maude and P llock's Law of Merchant Shipping (vol. 1, pp. 86. 125). The second proposition depends upon the true construction of the words in the before-mentioned 10th section, "disbursements made by him," and the cases of The Chieftain (B. & L. 104; 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 120; 1 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 327) and The Edwin (B. & L. 281; 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 658; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 36) were cited by the defendant's counsel in support of his contention that disbursements must mean money actually paid by the master, and cannot be applied to a mere liability created as in the present case by a bill of exchange drawn by him and afterwards dishonoured. Both these cases were carefully considered in the judgment in The Feronia (ubi sup.), in wàich case I held that the money earned by freight having been paid into court, the liabilities incurred by the master for the benefit of the ship were to be considered as disbursements, and to be discharged out of the fund in court. In the present instance there is no freight paid into court. But the court has its hand upon the res, and ought not to part with it, in my opinion, until justice is done to all parties. The judgment in The Feronia was followed in a subsequent judgment which I delivered in The Marco Polo (24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 804; 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 54), and was mentioned without disapprobation in the case of Re Rio [PRIV. Co. Grande do Sul Steamship Company (5 Ch. Div. 282; 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 603; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 424). I must also refer to the report of the registrar in the case of the Red Rose, which is printed at the end of the case of The Feronia (ubi sup.), and which is stated in the judg ment in that case to have been approved by Dr. Lushington. Upon the whole I think that any doubt that may have arisen from the decisions in The Chieftain and The Edwin, must be holden to be now set at rest, and that the law is correctly laid down in The Feronia. The conclusion at which I arrive is that the liability which the plaintiff has incurred for the use of the ship is a disbursement within the meaning of the 10th section of the Admiralty Court Act 1861, and that he is entitled to a maritime lien on the ship. It remains to consider the question of laches. The law on this subject is established by the cases of The Bold Buccleugh (7 Moo. P. C. C. 267; 3 W. Rob. 229). and The Europa (8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 368; 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 337; B. & L. 89; 2 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 1). It results from these cases that a maritime lien is not indelible, and may be lost by negligence or delay where the rights of third parties may be compromised; but, where reasonable diligence is used and the proceedings are had in good faith, the lien travels with the thing into whatsoever possession it may come. What constitutes reasonable diligence must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. In the present case I hold that it is proved that until judgment was actually obtained against the plaintiff (who by the way was continually at sea), he believed, and not unreasonably so, that his liability would not become absolute, and that Messrs. Roy and Sons, his previous employers, would protect him from having to meet the bills himself. I am of opinion that he cannot fairly be charged with such want of diligence as would forfeit his lien. If it were neces-ary to decide whether the defendant, Mr. Wallace, was, as a matter of fact, aware of the liability attaching to the ship when she was bought by his firm, I should be inclined to believe the positive evidence of Mr. Breslauer on the subject in preference to that of Mr. Wallace, who could only speak to his want of recollection of the alleged conversations. I pronounce for the plaintiff in this case. Solicitors for the plaintiff, Ingledew and Ince. Solicitor for the defendant, W. Batham. proved that the facilities of the port were greater than the production of the mines, and that in cons quence of want of facilities for getting the coals down from the mines the ship was delayed in loading. Held (reversing the judgment of the court below), that the charterers were liable under the charterparty for the delay so caused. THIS WAS an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, (appeal side), consisting of Ramsay, Monk, and Baby, J.J. (Cross J. dissenting) which had reversed a judgment of the Superior Court (Torrance, J.) in an action brought by the appellants as owners of the ship Gresham, against the respondents as charterers, to recover damages for demurrage under a charter-party. The facts of the case appear fully from the judgment of their Lordships. Butt, Q.C, and J. G. Witt appeared for the appellants. Cohen, Q.C., and W. W. Kerr for the respon. dents. The following cases were cited in the course of the arguments: Kearon v. Pearson, 7 H. & N. 386; 31 L. J. 1, Ex.; Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company, Leideman v. Schultz, 14 C. B. 38; Hudson v. Ede, L Rep. 3 Q. B. 412; 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 764; 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 114; Postlethwaite v. Freeland, 5 App. Cas. 499; 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 845; 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 302. Their Lordships took time to consider their judgment. March 8.-The judgment of the Court was delivered by Sir RICHARD COUCH. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, in the province of Quebec (appeal side), in an action by the appellants against the respondents to recover damage in the nature of demurrage for the detention of the appellant's ship, the Gresham, at Sydney, Nova Scotia, whether she had gone to load under a charter-party dated the 12th June, 1872. Torrance, J., as the judge of the Superior Court for Lower Canada, province of Quebec, district of Montreal, on the 21st May 1880, decided that the Gresham was unduly detained for seventeen days, and condemned the defendants in 8501., damages, with interest and costs. This decision was reversed on the 21st March 1882, by three of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side), one judge, Cross, J., dissenting. No objection was made in this appeal to the amount of the damages, and it was agreed before their Lordships by the respondents' counsel that, if the appellants are entitled to recover damages, they are to be calculated for seventeen days at the rate of 501 per day as was adjudged by Torrance, J. were The appellants were the owners of a steamship called the Gresham, and the defendants merchants trading at Montreal, under the firm of Lord, Magor, and Munn. On the 12th June 1873 the plaintiffs, through Mr. John G. Sidey, their [PRIV. CO. agent at Montreal, entered into a charter-party with the defendants for the hire of the Gresham, then at Liverpool. The material part of it is as follows: "It is this day mutually agreed between J. G. Sidey, of Montreal, agent of the good steamship or vessel called the Gresham, whereof 1801 1162 is master, of the measurement of tons, or thereabouts, now in Liverpool, of the one part, and Messrs. Lord, Magor, and Munn, of Montreal, that the said ship being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient speed, sail and proceed to Sydney or other port, or so near thereunto as she may safely get, and there load from the factors of the said merchant a full and complete cargo of coals, taking her turn with other steamers, but taking precedence of sailing vessels, and receive prompt despatch in loading and discharging, and to load and discharge always afloat." The Gresham, under the command of E. G. Bulkeley, the master, proceeded from Liverpool to Sydney, and arrived there on the morning of Saturday, the 19th July 1873, when the master, about 9 a.m. on that morning, notified to Messrs. Archibald and Co. of Sydney, the agents of the charterers there, that she was ready to receive and load her cargo under the charter-party. On the 25th July a few bunker coals were shipped, but no cargo coals were shipped or board the Gresham until the 4th Aug., on which day she began to take in cargo coals, and finished loading on the 13th. She was then compelled to leave with less than her full cargo by 300 tons, but no question arises as to this. The appellants in their declaration alleged that the defendants did not according to the terms of the charter-party load the Gresham with a full and complete cargo of coals, taking her turn with other steamers, but taking precedence of sailing vessels, and afford and give the said steamship prompt despatch in loading her cargo of coals. And the defendants by their plea averred that they complied with the conditions of the charter-party, and that the Gresham had her turn with other steamers, taking precedence of sailing vessels, according to the custom and usage of the port of Sydney, and had prompt despatch in loading at Sydney. The material evidence upon this matter is that of Mr. Frederick N. Gisborne, the only witness called for the defendants, and the entries in a shipping book of which he produced a copy, and which he said contained a complete history of the business done during the period to which they relate. Mr. Gisborne stated that he was the engineer of two or three coal companies at Sydney; that all vessels loading from the mines he was attending to were of necessity reported to him, and no other person had any right to enter reports of vessels. Each vessel was put down in turn in the book at the time it was reported, and they were loaded in that order. None of the steamships that were berthed or reported after the Gresham were loaded before her, and the Hibernia being reported before the Gresham was loaded before her. They gave the Gresham coal as fast as they could deliver it— as fast as facilities of the mines would allow-the facilities of the pier were greater than the production of the mines, and the vessels could have been loaded in a shorter time or with more despatch if the facilities at the mines had been better. The following is a copy of the entries in PRIV. Co.] CH. MERC. BANK OF INDIA, &c. v. NETHERLANDS INDIA STEAM NAV. Co. [CT. of App. the shipping book: "Extracts from Shipping Book, 1873-S.S. Kangaroo.-Telegraph Cable Fleet. Commenced loading, 19th July. Completed, 24th. Cargo, 761 tons. S.S. Gresham.Reported, 22nd July. Commenced loading, 25th. Completed, 13th Aug. Cargo, 1830 tons. Schr. Heroine.-Arrived, 22nd July. Loaded, 24th. Cargo, 120 tons. Schr. Fear Not.-Arrived, 24th July. Loaded, 25th Cargo, 52 tons. Schr. Trial. Reported, 25th July. Loaded, 26th. Cargo, 41 tons. S.S. Hibernia.-Telegraph Fleet. Reported, 19th July. Commenced loading, 30th. Completed 5th Aug. Cargo, 1901 tons. Schr. Rebecca Ann.-Arrived, 31st July. Loaded, 1st and 2nd Aug. Cargo, 192 tons. S.S. Alpha.Completed discharging, 1st Aug. Commenced loading, 7th Aug. Completed, 16th. Cargo, 1959 tons. S.S. R. M. Hunton, took 143 tons bunker coal, 6th and 7th Aug. S.S. Crosby, took 234 tons bunker coal, 11th and 15th Aug." It was explained by Mr. Gisborne that the three schooners, Heroine, Fear Not, and Trial, occupied inside berths where no large steamers could lie, and the loading of them did not interfere with the loading of the larger vessels. But the Hibernia, which was reported on the 19th July, did not commence loading until the 30th, and between the 24th and 30th only three small cargoes of 120, 52, and 41 tons respectively were loaded, viz., on the 24th, 25th, and 26th. No coals were loaded on the three following days, and the loading of the Hibernia's cargo of 1901 tons was completed between the 30th July and the 5th of August. The loading of the Gresham's cargo, 1830 tons, was completed between the 4th and 13th of Aug., only a few bunker coals having been loaded on the 25th of July. These dates show the time within which it was possible to load the cargo if the coals had been ready. The arrival of the Gresham having been notified to the defendants' agents on the 19th July, the plaintiffs were, by the terms of the charter-party, entitled to a full and complete cargo of coals on that day. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that when the ship is ready to load the charterers must have a cargo ready, but he contended that they were not bound to do anything till the ship was in her turn, and it was not shown that she did not begin to load before the 5th Aug. because the cargo was not ready. The facts, however, are that the defendants employed the same person, the agent of the coal companies, to load the Gresham as was employed to load the Hibernia. In consequence of the delay in getting the coals down from the mines, there was not a sufficient supply at the port, by which the loading of the Hibernia was delayed. This deficiency of coals, and not the waiting for her turn was the cause of the Gresham not sooner obtaining her cargo. The defendants undertook that the ship should receive prompt despatch in loading, and their Lordships are of opinion that they are responsible for this delay. It is not necessary to consider whether the Gresham was thus delayed for the whole of the seventeen days, it having been agreed that 8501. shall be taken as the amount of the damages. Their Lordships therefore will humbly advise Her Majesty to reverse the decree of the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side), and to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court of the 21st May VOL. V., N.S. 1830, with costs. And the respondents will pay the costs of this appeal. Solicitors for the appellants, Pritchard and Sons. Solicitors for the respondents, Simpson, Hammond, and Co. Supreme Court of Judicature. COURT OF APPEAL. Nov. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 1882, and Jan. 17, 1883. (Before BAGGAllay, Brett, and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) THE CHARTERED MERCANTILE BANK OF INDIA, LONDON, AND CHINA, V. THE NETHERLANDS INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED. (a) APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Bill of lading-Exceptions-Collision-Negligence or default of master or servants-Negligence of servants on board another ship-Liability of shipowner-Damages Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-sect. 9. Where a vessel carrying cargo under a bill of lading providing against loss and damage from collision and loss or damage from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilots, master, mariners, or other servants of the owners in navigating the ship, collides with another vessel belonging to the same owners by reason of the joint negligence of both vessels and the cargo is lost, there is no liability under the contract of carriage, as such loss is covered by the above exceptions, but the owners are liable in tort for the negligence of their servants on board the vessel not carrying the cargo. Under such circumstances the Admiralty Court rule as to the division of damages applies, and the owners' liability is one half the damage, their liability in respect of the carrying ship being covered by the bill of lading. Semble, where a collision between two ships is caused by the negligence of either or both, such collision is not an accident or peril of the sea within the meaning of a bill of lading. (b) Semble, where a ship is owned by an English limited company, which for the purpose of carrying on business in a foreign country is registered in that country as a foreign company, and the ship is also registered there, the ship is nevertheless a British ship, and, although not having a British registry, is subject to all the liabilities of a British ship. sea . The plaintiffs shipped specie on board the defendants' ship, under a bill of lading which contained the following: "Accidents, loss, and damage from collision and all the perils, dangers, and accidents of the and steam navigation of whatsoever nature and kind soever, and accidents, loss or damage from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilots, master, mariners, or other servants of the company, in navigating the ship • excepted." The defendants were an English limited company, (a) Reported by P. B. HUTCHINS, Esq., Barrister-at-law. (b) See Woodley and Co. v. Mitchell and Co., p. 71, where this point has later been expressly decided.-ED. F |