SHIPPING AND MERCANTILE GAZETTE CORRESPONDENCE. (Reprinted by special arrangement with Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL.) DAMAGE IN HARBOUR.-I chartered my vessel, the Climax, of Runcorn, at Liverpool, to take a cargo of patent manure to be discharged at the College near Llanedan, in Menai Straits, which is a place where vessels usually discharge cargoes, and was requested by the officer at this place to go to Caernarvon to pay the harbour dues before discharging, which amounted to 18s. 7d., which amount has been paid. At the spot where I discharged there were a number of stones, one of which was about a foot high, which has gone through the bottom of my vessel, consequently the water came in and damaged 1 cwt. of bread, cost 26s., and also the cargo. What are those harbour dues paid for unless to keep those places in a proper and fit condition for vessels to lay? Are not the harbour authorities supposed to clear the stones away for the safety of vessels ? If so, cannot I recover from the authorities the damage done to my vessel and cargo ?--If the vessel was chartered to discharge aground she should have been berthed in a place she could lie safely, at low water, without damage. If the harbour authorities allowed large stones to project out of the bed of the channel where the vessel had to be berthed, and were aware of the same, and took no steps to warn shipmasters of this danger, or to remove them, they would be held liable to pay for the damages incurred.

ן

EXPENSES OF SHIPWRECKED CREW.An English ship having been lost off Cape Horn, part of her crew were taken by a German vessel and landed at Tomé (Chili). The German captain sent a bill of 1s. 6d. per man per day for the maintenance of the crew while on board the German vessel; also for the detention of the vessel at Tomé, and his hotel bill. Who is supposed to pay? The agreement between the shipowner and the crew terminated on the wreck of the ship, and, therefore, the liability of the shipowner ceased from that time for any expenses incurred by the crew. The German shipmaster has a claim for the board of the crew and expenses incurred on their behalf; and those to whom the food was supplied are alone responsible for payment, if they have the means of doing so. We think, however, that the master of the German vessel should forego his claim on the shipwrecked crew, and apply to the Board of Trade, under Sec. 459 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and Sec. 59 of the 25th and 26th Vic., cap. 63, for salvage remuneration for saving life.

GUARANTEED CLASSIFICATION.-In 1867 I purchased a ship with the following clause in the agreement:"Guarantees that the vessel shall stand A 1 red in Lloyds till end of 1868." The vessel, in August of 1868, was in New Orleans, and, having leaked at the bow, was cut away

from inside. When she returned here Lloyds surveyor went on board and condemned the ship in the month of September. The vessel was bought after coming out of dry dock, where seller said she had been thoroughly overhauled, and the certificate was obtained for the A 1 red class up to end of 1868. The vessel cost £700 odd to get her continued in the A 1 red class, as well as occupying some three months for repairs. Has the present owner (being the original purchaser) the right of action to recover cost for continuing the vessel in the guaranteed class of selling condition? Has the purchaser (the present owner) the right of action against the seller for loss of the time of the ship-say demurrage ?→→ The ship having been placed in a dry dock, thoroughly overhauled and repaired, and the classification contracted for obtained, the conditions of the sale and purchase were fulfilled. The guarantee would imply the repairs for classification. The surveyor's certificate would show that the ship was delivered in a fit state to stand A 1 red in Lloyds till the end of 1868.

--

MASTER'S WAGES. On the 20th March, 1872, a ship sailed to Hong Kong, with a cargo of coals, and was spoken on the 23rd, and has not since been heard of. About the end of September following, the owners intimated to the wife of the master that, having had a telegram from Hong Kong that day, and no word of the ship there, and the ship having been out over six months without being spoken, they declined to pay any more advances. As all hope has now gone for ever, is the widow entitled to something further on account of wages? I understand that his wages were to be £15 per month. Her advance was only £6, which she received for five months. Her husband said that his effects were insured in or through the owners' office. She holds no documents, and the owners have never admitted it. Is there any possibility of finding out if his effects have been insured, and what amount of wages you think she is entitled to ?The wages are due up to the time of the loss of the ship. It is impossible, however, to determine when the master discontinued his services, and the question must be left to the decision of the County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction, if the claim is above £50, or to the magistrates, if under that amount. The insurance com⚫ panies post a ship when "out of time," and this is a criterion to go by. There is no knowing whether the ship foundered shortly after the 23rd of March, 1872, when last spoken, or whether she went down close to her port of destination. The fairest way is to claim the balance of wages for the average voyage from England to Hong Kong-or say four months for a sailing ship. This would give a claim on the owners for £30 in the case mentioned. As to obtaining information about the insurance of the master's effects, that could only be done by an action in a court of law..

"

ORDERS AT PORT OF CALL.-A sailing vessel when at Swansea, bound to Charente with a cargo of coals, was chartered to proceed to La Rochelle or Santander, as ordered at Charente, and there load a full and complete cargo of wheat. The vessel, on her outward voyage to Charente, met with an accident which necessitated heavy repairs. During the time the repairs were going on, the wheat charterers were communicated with, and endeavours were made to get them to load the vessel at Charente, the owner making a reduction in freight. This they refused to do, and gave orders for the vessel to proceed to La Rochelle. The captain accordingly took only a small quantity of ballast, and cleared his vessel for La Rochelle, and proceeded to what are called the "Limites" of the port, intending to drop down the river on the following morning's tide. In the meantime the charterer's agent had received counter orders, which he communicated to the captain, for the vessel to proceed to Santander. The captain refused to acknowledge the charterer's right to change the orders, the vessel having cleared and left the port for La Rochelle. But, on the charterers' agent insisting, and to avoid litigation, the captain, after some hesitation, agreed to proceed to Santander, on consideration of charterers paying the extra expense for ballasting.-It has been decided by actions in British courts of law that where the option is given by charter-party to order a ship to one port, and she has sailed to the port indicated for loading, any subsequent change in the final order, by which increased expense on the part of the shipowner is incurred, falls on the charterer.

SHORT DELIVERY.-I loaded a cargo of potatoes in Dublin, for Bangor and Caernarvon, all in bags, for three different parties-viz., 13 tons delivered at Bangor, which was tallied in and out; remainder was taken to Caernarvon, and was not tallied in, but tallied out. I delivered all I took on board to two separate parties, and one says he received seven bags short, and the other 32 bags short. I made a declaration to the effect that I delivered all I took in, and they now refuse to pay me freight for same. I did not get a bill of lading for the goods; consequently I signed no document for quantity or weight. The parties want me to pay them the value of the deficiency. Must I be answerable for, such or not, and can I not claim my freight for quantity delivered ?-A ship. master himself, or his mate, should keep tally of the cargo where it can be done, as in the shipment of bags of potatoes; and, not having done so, it will be difficult to establish a complete answer to the demand. If the cargo has been parted with, and the lien for freight gone, our corre spondent will have to take legal proceedings, and then the court will have to decide as to the alleged short delivery on the evidence adduced.

My vessel was engaged by word of mouth to go from this port to Cardiff for a cargo of coals. I took in the cargo, and signed for eighty.

eight tons, feeling quite satisfied my vessel had got the weight in, according to loading marks, and which we can tell in small vessels. I have now delivered two tons short of what I signed for, and not having seen it weighed into the ship, can the merchant make me pay first cost of coals; and, also, can he make me pay for wheeling the cargo into his 'store? What is my best step to take ?-If the coal waggons were exposed to the rain, the coal would weigh heavier on shipment than on discharge, for they would drain in the hold, and partly dry during the voyage. This would not, perhaps, account for two out of eighty-eight tons, the difference in weight between input and output. The cargo, or a portion of it, should have been held for bill of lading freight, if proof can be given that all the coal shipped was duly delivered. The hirer of the ship should be sued for the sums deducted. The shipowner cannot be made liable for the expense of wheeling the cargo, nor has he anything to do with it.

I have lately had many heavy deductions to make for short weight on coals shipped for France and the English Channel ports. The colliery refused to admit my claims, saying that the coals were weighed within 100 yards of the loading berth, and that the captain or his mate could check the weighing. I thereupon asked the colliery to point this out to the next captain, and to refuse to allow him to put "weight unknown" on his bill of lading. They have done so, and the captain has refused to sign, and has sailed away without bills of lading. What redress is open to me, as not having signed a bill of lading may invalidate the insurance of the cargo? Is it not hard that the party having no control over the weighing of the coals shoull be held liable for the short weight? If the colliery place at disposal of captains the means of checking the weight they can do no more.-A shipmaster may be shown a truck on a weighbridge and be told that the total weight is so much, and the tare of the waggon so much, leaving the nett weight of coal to be so many tons and fractions; but he has no means of verifying the correctness of the machine or the tare of the truck. A master is not compelled to sign for weight unless he can satisfactorily check the weighing and establish the facts. It is hard, as our correspondent states, to be held liable as the exporter, and it would be still harder to make the carrier liable for frauds on weighing.

PROTEST.When signing bills of lading for my cargo, I wrote the words "weight unknown to master," as I believed that quantity was not on board. However, I arrived at port of discharge, and discharged cargo, which turned out 7 tons 5 ewt. short of bill of lading quantity. The holder of my bill of lading wanted me to make a declaration at my own expense, which I refused to do, as I thought I could not be com

OUR OFFICIAL LOG.

pelled to pay when I did not sign for weight. Am I obliged to make a declaration, at my own expense, to recover my freight, when consignee would not pay until I signed one? It only costs 2s. 6d., but this amount, I think, should be paid at all times by shippers or consignees.Whoever wants a protest should pay for it. In the instance mentioned the protest was for the benefit of the consignee, and should be paid for by him.

TOWAGE AND SALVAGE. I am one of the crew of the screw steamer Redesdale, of North Shields. We took in tow the screw steamer Swan, of Newcastle, with broken shaft, and towed her to Malta, her port of destination, on June 17 last year. Are we entitled to any recompense from the owners for such services ?-Towage is not salvage, and, therefore, the crew of the steamer which towed the other are not entitled to Had a gale sprung up, and the disabled any share in the sum earned. ship been placed in danger, the towage would have been converted into salvage, and the crew could have claimed a share in any salvage award.

TIGHT, STAUNCH, AND STRONG.-We chartered a vessel some time since on the form enclosed for your inspection. You will observe it is worded, "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 Quebec direct in ballast." The vessel was on the patent slip at the time of the charter, having necessary repairs effected, of which the charThese repairs were completed on the 23rd, and terers were fully aware. Two questions have arisen vessel was ballasted and sailed 27th. resulting in a lawsuit in this case, and we wish to know the legal position,or definition of the case as understood in maritime circles. 1. There being two forms of charter-party-one, "the vessel being tight, staunch, and strong," &c., and the other, "the vessel being now tight, staunch, strong," &c.-we, of course, adopted the first-named form, the vessel being at the time on the slip. In each case, does not the meaning of word "being" signify that, when the vessel shall be tight, staunch, and strong, she shall with all convenient speed proceed, &c.? 2. "In ballast." Do these words bind the owners to purchase ballast, and prohibit them from carrying any article, such as iron, ore, moulding sand, limestone, &c., should such be offered to ballast the ship, and provided freight free ?-1st. The words "now" and "being" make no difference in the actual warrantry, as both imply that the ship shall be tight, In one case the ship is staunch, and strong, at the time of sailing. implied to be in an efficient state when the charter-party is entered into ; and the other, that she shall be so when she commences her voyage. 2nd. The ship would not be prohibited from carrying any kind of ballast. If the charterer were to provide the ballast, he would be entitled to any benefit arising therefrom, but not otherwise.