steamer. The cargo of the George Dean, palm oil, was afterwards transhipped and brought to London and there sold. The action was entered in 4,000l. A proctor appeared for the owners of the cargo, and gave bail in that amount as far as regarded the cargo. An appearance was also given for the ship which was of small value. The cargo was asserted to be unsaleable in Lisbon, and the question was, whether salvage was due on the value at Lisbon or in London. 1857. December 8. DR. LUSHINGTON :-I am of opinion that the salvors are en- Judgment. titled to salvage only on the value at Lisbon. I hope to be able to settle this question at once by taking some agreed value on which to decree salvage. If this cannot be done, and a reference to the Registrar and Merchants becomes necessary, I imagine the strict method to arrive at the value of the cargo at Lisbon would be, not on any assertion of its being unsaleable there, but by putting it at 71. and 87. per cent. less than the proceeds of its sale in London, deducting freight and other charges for the voyage from Lisbon to London, but allowing a pro ratâ freight as far as Lisbon. After some discussion at the bar, Dr. LUSHINGTON took the value of ship, cargo and freight to be 4,500l.; directed that the value of ship and freight should be deducted from that to ascertain what the owners of the cargo were liable for, and decreed a moiety of the 4,500l. to the salvors, as the salvage service was of a highly meritorious nature. On December 18th, the proctor for the salvors prayed the Judge to apportion 1,9501., being the balance of the sum of 2,250, the amount of salvage pronounced due to the owner, master and crew of the John Paul, after deducting 3007., the expenses incurred by the owners of the said ship. DR. LUSHINGTON allotted 800l. to the owner, 400l. to the master, and 750l. among the crew, in proportion to their wages, apprentices' wages to be taken at two-thirds of those of able seamen. Orme, proctor for the salvors. F. Clarkson for the owners of cargo. Tebbs for the owners of the ship. 1857. December 8. Judgment. THE OLIVE, THOMAS RICKARD, Master. Master's Suit for Wages-17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 191— Practice In estimating the allowance and compensation for loss of time in the case of THIS HIS cause came before the Court on objection to certain items of a bill of costs taxed by the Registrar. It was originally a suit for wages brought by Mr. Thomas Rickard, the master of the ship Olive, who, after some steps had been taken, accepted a tender of 2441. 8s. 3d., being 767. 9s. 1d. less than the sum claimed, together with costs. The Registrar reported the proctor's bill of costs at 781. 19s. 8d., and the sums now objected to were wages of Mr. Thomas Rickard, from 31st December, 1856, to 28th February, 1857, when the tender was made, during which time he was detained in this country to give evidence on the summary petition in the cause; two months, at 107. per month, and board wages, during such time, at 15s. per week. The objection was founded on the suggestion that Thomas Rickard was not detained in this country solely to give evidence on the summary petition in this cause, but was necessarily and principally, if not solely, detained to give evidence also on his own behalf in an action brought against him on a bill of exchange that came on for trial at the Gloucester Spring Assizes; and that, at all events, the allowance of 201. for wages was improper, and ought to have been disallowed in this cause. Addams, in objection to the Registrar's report. DR. LUSHINGTON inquired whether the practice of the Registrar was to allow ordinary witnesses compensation for loss of time as well as for subsistence. The Registrar said that such was the practice, and that in the Chimera the Court had said, that wages would be the proper rate of compensation for seamen. DR. LUSHINGTON:-The question for the Court does not appear to be one as to amount, but whether any sum of money 1857. December 8. ordinary prac now all the privileges of an ordinary suit for wages, seaman in a ought to have been allowed to the master in this case by way of board wages, and as compensation for wages that might have been earned during the period of his detention. The Court is The Court will not inclined to depart from the rules hitherto acted upon by this adhere to its Court, to follow rules laid down elsewhere. There may be dif- tice. ferent rules in other Courts, and there may be good reasons for them in those Courts. The only question the Court has now to consider is, whether the sums charged on account of maintenance and compensation fall within the ordinary practice of the Court. I cannot doubt that the master has, generally speaking, the same The master has rights and privileges, in suits for wages in this Court, as ordinary seamen have; the 191st section of the Merchant Shipping Act is express on the point; and a seaman suing in this Court for his wages, being a necessary witness, is entitled to such costs and compensation. Whether a person is a necessary witness must always depend on the circumstances of each case; on the and is primá facie a necespresent occasion, where the master brings a suit for his own sary witness. wages, he is primâ facie a necessary witness. As to the facts Facts of the of this case, the master entered his suit, bail was given and a summary petition admitted; a tender was then made, less than the amount claimed, together with costs, and was ultimately accepted by the master. I am of opinion that the master was just as necessary a witness, whether the sum originally claimed was larger than that accepted or not. In the course of the proceedings it is alleged that he was not a necessary witness, and that he did not, in fact, stop for this purpose of giving evidence in this case, but for another purpose altogether. Now that may be true, but his remaining at Gloucester for the Assizes I hold to be perfectly immaterial. The question is, not whether he was a material witness in two cases, but whether he was so in one. I am of opinion he was so in the present case, and confirm the Registrar's report with costs. Thomas, proctor for the mortgagee of the ship. F. Clarkson for the master. case. 1857. December 8. THE CHANCE, ROBINSON, Master. Collision-Practice-Libel given in and Witnesses examined de bene esse-No Opportunity for Cross-Examination. The surrogate had admitted A.'s libel in a cause of collision, and allowed witnesses to be examined thereon de bene esse, on affidavit that the ship was about to sail for Syria. She sailed in fact, and no opportunity was given to crossexamine. The Court allowed B.'s allegation in reply to such libel to be brought in and witnesses to be examined and cross-examined thereon, but ordered that the cause should not be heard till A. should have submitted the witnesses on his libel for cross-examination. THIS HIS was a question of practice arising in a cause of damage promoted by the brig Meldon against the owners of the brig Chance. The collision occurred on the 9th October, and both vessels put into Ramsgate harbour to repair. The Chance remained there till 19th October, when she sailed for foreign parts. On the 24th October, a monition by the proctor of the Meldon was served on the owners of the Chance, but as owing to the absence of their crew and master from England, they were unable to instruct a proctor as to their defence, they took no immediate steps. On 31st October, on an affidavit of one of the clerks of the proctor for the Meldon as to the necessity of that ship sailing, the surrogate permitted a libel to be brought in on behalf of the Meldon, and witnesses to be examined thereon de bene esse. Such witnesses were produced on the 3rd and 5th November. On the 6th November, the proctor instructed for the Chance, which had by that time returned to England, gave the proctor for the Meldon notice of his intention to defend the action, and to enter a cross-action. In reply to this, he was informed that the witnesses were examined on the libel given in on behalf of the Meldon, and that she had sailed for Syria. It appeared that the proctor of the Meldon was misinstructed on this point, as the Meldon did not actually leave Ramsgate till the 10th November. The proctor for the Chance now applied to the Court for leave to bring in an allegation, and to examine witnesses thereon de bene esse, without the proctor for the Meldon being permitted to see the allegation or cross-examine the witnesses, or any of them, until after the witnesses on his libel should have been cross-examined by the proctors for the Chance. Deane moved the Court to the above effect, and submitted, that if the Court was not inclined to adopt that exact form of proceeding, it might permit the libel on behalf of the Chance to be examined to in chief, and hear the cause on the examination in chief on either side. Addams, contrà. 1857. December 8. DR. LUSHINGTON:-It appears to the Court that matters in Judgment. this case have got into considerable confusion, from which it may be no easy matter to extricate them. In cases of collision, where one of the vessels is to sail immediately, the owners are naturally anxious to give in their plea and examine witnesses, and the Court is equally anxious to give them every fair facility so to do, though sometimes there is a difficulty from the other party not being prepared with necessary facts to enable them to cross-examine the witnesses. By mistake, I presume, in this case very erroneous statements have been made to the proctor and the surrogate. The question is, what is the best course. under the present circumstances? I do not intend to put myself at the disadvantage of hearing this cause without cross-examination; the course I shall pursue will be, to admit the allegation. on behalf of the Chance, and to allow witnesses to be examined and cross-examined upon it; but I shall make an order that the cause shall not be heard till the proctor for the Meldon has submitted his witnesses for cross-examination. Stokes, proctor for the Chance. F. Clarkson for the Meldon. THE NEPTUNUS, JACOB GREFF, Master. On application to strike out extra-articulate evidence on an allegation in a collision Held, that parties have a right to require extra-articulate evidence to be struck out either at the hearing or previously, and that in this respect there is a wide difference between a proceeding by act on petition and affidavit and a proceeding by plea and proof. THIS HIS was a question of practice arising from the evidence taken on an allegation in a cause of collision. The articles of the allegation on which such evidence was taken were as follows: Fifthly, that in part reply to the matters pleaded in the second |