will hold that it certainly means more than bearing, for this reason: The rule is clearly intended to diminish danger, and to be acted upon when it is not manifest there is no danger. The mere bearing, however accurately ascertained, can convey no information as to whether there is danger or not; therefore position must mean something more. The important fact to ascertain is the approximate course of the approaching vessel, and we think, therefore, that "position" must be taken to refer to course also.—December 2.

"

RECEIPTS.

SIR,-Is there any legal obligation to give a receipt in any ready-money transaction, whether the amount be more or less than £2? If so, what is the procedure to enforce such?

Plymouth, Nov. 4, 1899.

Yours, &c.,

SUBSCRIBER.

[Under Section 103 of the Stamp Act, 1891, it is an offence to refuse to give a receipt duly stamped in any case where a receipt would be liable to duty, i.e., over the £2 limit. The penalty is a fine of £10, which, under Section 121, can be sued for and recovered by information in the High Court in England in the name of the Attorney-General for England.]

RULE OF ROAD.-TUG AND TOW.-TRAWLER. SIR,-The captain of a sailing vessel has requested us to ask your opinion on the following. Is it the duty of a tug having a vessel in tow to give way to a vessel under sail, or vice versá? Also, whether a steam trawler while trawling should give way to a vessel under sail, or vice versa ? Yours, &c.,

Shoreham, Sept. 8, 1899.

B.

[A tug is a steam vessel, whether she has a vessel in tow or not, and so is a steam trawler, even if trawling, and each is therefore bound to keep out of the way of a sailing vessel under Article 20. As to steam trawlers, see article, "Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Steam Trawlers," Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. XII., p. 78.]

SALVAGE.-AWARD NOT MORE THAN £300.-COSTS.

When in a salvage action in the Admiralty Division not more than £300 is awarded, it is a fair assumption that unless some special point is raised-such as a denial of the jurisdiction, a material allegation of misconduct, a dispute as to an agreement, or some other matter requiring careful consideration-the action never ought to have been brought in the High Court at all. County Courts have jurisdiction to decide claims for salvage where either the value of the property salved does not exceed £1,000, or, secondly, where the amount claimed-and this means the amount justly claimed-does not exceed £300. It is a very proper jurisdiction for the County Courts to have, and there are two good reasons why salvors should not be allowed with impunity to bring actions in the High Court which could be tried in the local

Court. First, the expenses of a High Court action must of necessity be higher, and as the defendants in nearly all salvage cases have to pay the costs, it is a hardship upon them to be involved in wholly unnecessary expenses which they cannot avoid. Secondly, it is a hardship on other suitors for the time of the High Court to be occupied with cases which need not be tried there, and for the hearing of their cases to be, as a consequence, delayed. Some judges may be more lenient with the plaintiffs in these unnecessary cases than others, but it is a risky experiment to count upon the High Court judge allowing the time of the Court to be occupied and unnecessary costs incurred in this way without marking his disapprobation. Mr. Justice Bucknill has recently intimated, in the action brought by the owners of the Trevanion against the owners of the Garry, that he will not encourage the practice, and for this, as well as for other reasons, attention may be drawn to the case. The Garry, a small steamship of 973 tons gross register, while on a voyage from Antwerp to Southampton, broke down, her centre furnace giving out when she was about five miles from the Varne, about 4 o'clock on March 27 last. The weather was fine, with nothing worse than a fresh breeze blowing, and there was nothing to have prevented the Garry anchoring until a tug could have been got from Dover, which was only about eight miles off. Shortly after the Garry broke down, however, the Trevanion, a steamship of 2,420 tons gross register, which was proceeding up Channel on a voyage from Odessa to Hamburg, came up and offered to take the Garry in tow. Obviously, to accept such assistance was to accept salvage services, and the salving vessel being a large and valuable steamship like the Trevanion, the result was to involve the owners of the Garry in the probability of a salvage claim of a very different character to the cost of a few miles' towage by a tug. However, after some demur the assistance of the Trevanion was accepted and the Garry was towed into Dover Roads. On the way the hawsers parted twice, but except for this, which involved just the possibility, but really very slight risk, as the judge held, of fouling the propeller, the service was perfectly easy, the eightmiles' tow being performed in two hours. It seems just the case where the salvors would rely upon and over-estimate the danger, and the owners of the salved vessel would be impressed with the fact that the service was only a short tow, which could have been performed just as well by a tug. The result was that when the plaintiffs brought their action in the Admiralty Division the defendants tendered £200, which was not accepted, and the action

was tried out at, of course, considerable cost. The judge awarded £300-just the County Court limit-and only gave the plaintiffs County Court costs. This means that the owners of the Trevanion for the service performed by their valuable steamer get the owner's proportion of £300, and have to pay not only the extra costs which even successful parties always have to pay, but also the difference between their actual costs and costs on the lower County Court scale; while the defendants have to pay not only the award, but their own costs on the High Court scale and the plaintiffs' costs on the lower scale. The result can hardly be satisfactory to either party. The lessons to be drawn from the case seem to be, so far as salvors are concerned, that towage will not be compensated at a high rate simply because it was performed by a valuable steamship, and that if the service is likely to be recompensed by an award not exceeding £300, it is advisable not to take proceedings in the High Court. On the other hand, the case affords a warning to masters against accepting towage services from valuable steamships if they can avoid doing so without incurring undue risk.-July 25.

SALVAGE.-MISCONDUCT.

Salvage actions are seldom of much interest except to the parties immediately concerned, namely, to the owners or their underwriters of the one vessel which has to pay the salvage, and the owners, master, and crew of the other, who divide between them the award. Whether an award is large or small is not of much importance to those who own or navigate other vessels, for the simple reason that if the time comes when they are involved in a claim of this description one judgment affords little test of what a subsequent award will be. The circumstances of salvage services vary almost infinitely, and the views of different judges and their nautical advisers may be almost as diverse. The recent case of the Elise has, nevertheless, attracted a good deal of general attention, and has formed the subject of a good deal of comment in the press, more or less sensible. The case was really not of much importance, but attention has been drawn to it in such a manner that it may be necessary to add a few remarks to warn salvors against an erroneous opinion of their right to deal with the salved ship without regard to the wishes of her master. The facts of the case can be shortly stated. The Elise, a French steamship of about 2,000 tons gross, while on a voyage from Tunis to Dunkirk with a cargo of barley, was off Cape de Gatte, about 150

miles from Gibraltar, when, on the evening of December 6, a fire broke out in the lamp-room under the bridge. The fire was of a somewhat serious character, although it did not extend beyond the midships of the vessel. However, the master and crew got out their three boats and lay by the ship in them. Shortly afterwards the Northumbria, an English steamship of about the same size as the Elise, came up, attracted by the blaze, and the French crew went on board her. Somehow two of the boats went adrift, and the third was also lost. The Northumbria steamed about round the Elise, and a few hours after-about 3 o'clock on the morning of December 7-a boat was sent with the chief officer and chief engineer and five men of the Northumbria to the Elise. They boarded her and set to work to put out the fire. The boat was sent back to the Northumbria, and again returned to the Elise about 3.30; and about 6 o'clock there was another boat trip, the third engineer and a fireman being sent to help on board the Elise. About 8.30 the fire was under control, steam had been got up, and the two vessels proceeded for Gibraltar, and they arrived there about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the following day. It was alleged by the owners of the Northumbria that the Elise had been abandoned by her crew, without hope or intention of return; that the vessel was derelict and was saved from destruction, as, if the fire had been allowed time to get further hold, she would soon have become beyond any possibility of being saved. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the crew of the Elise took to their boats with the intention not of abandoning her, but to wait only until the fire burnt out the woodwork on the bridge-deck; that they asked the master of the Northumbria to stand by till morning, when it was their intention to go back to their vessel; that the boats of the Elise were wrongfully cast adrift by some of the Northumbria's crew, and that the master of the Northumbria improperly prevented the crew of the Elise from returning to their vessel, though they requested to be taken back from the first time the boat was sent. The last was the most serious allegation, especially as it was admitted that at some time the master of the Elise had requested to be taken back with his crew and the master of the Northumbria had refused the request. This course the plaintiffs justified by alleging that the request was not made till 7.30 in the morning, when the salvage crew were successfully getting the fire under, and that the master of the Northumbria did not consider it proper or prudent then to put the crew of the Elise on board their vessel. On these matters, except as to the allegation that the crew of the Elise left her with no intention of return

ing, the Court accepted the statements of the salvors as being correct, and held that the master of the Northumbria was "quite right in leaving his crew to complete the operations, looking at the matter from the point of view of seamanship and good sense." This is really the one point of general importance in the case. It may now be proper to point out that the judgment must not be taken as authority that salvors in possession are justified in all cases in refusing to allow any interference by the crew of the vessel. A salvor who puts any obstacle in the way of the master and crew of the salved vessel takes upon himself a grave responsibility. In the case of the Capella (Law Reports, 1892, P. 70), a vessel drove ashore, and her crew came or were brought to land; the master went for tug assistance, leaving the rest of the crew to watch. Salvors subsequently put off in a boat, refusing to take the mate and two of the crew with them, and boarded the Capella; subsequently they refused to allow the master of the Capella on board. Sir Charles Butt held that the conduct of the salvors was "wholly and utterly unjustifiable," dismissed their suit, and ordered them to pay the costs. In the Marie (7 P.D., 203), a brig in distress signalled for assistance, and was boarded by the crew of a lugger, who afterwards "insisted in having their own way." The Judge (Cinque Ports) reduced the amount of salvage he would otherwise have given them for acting in a violent and overbearing manner. In the Yan Yean (8 P.D., 147), the master and crew of a vessel in distress got on board a steamer standing by. The mate with two of the crew of the steamer afterwards went on board the Yan Yean, the mate refusing to take her master back, and Sir James Hannen said that in so doing he was guilty of "very reprehensible misconduct." The action was dismissed with costs, but there was also subsequent misconduct on the part of the salvors. The Pinnas (6 Asp., 313) is a case where salvors had performed a valuable service, but then declined to allow servants of the shipowner on board; there salvage was awarded, but the plaintiffs were deprived of costs. In this case Sir James Hannen made an observation which draws just the distinction between such cases and the Elise: "I can quite conceive the possibility of such circumstances that would morally excuse a man for saying, 'You must not interfere; it is a critical moment, and if you interfere in the way you propose we shall lose the ship.' The rule seems to be that, in general, salvors have no right to exclude a master from his ship or obtrude their service further than required. There is just the one exception when the salvors, being in possession, can justify their conduct in refusing to allow the master and crew