INSURANCE.

impressed with the stamp in accordance with the Statute of 1870.-(See pages 105 to 110, Maritime Notes und Queries, Vol. I.)]

PORT OR PORTS.

SIR-1st. If I have a ship proceeding to the guano islands (under the ordinary Guano Charter), on the West Coast of South America, what would my Policies properly cover, worded, "to Port or Ports on the West Coast, &c."? 2nd. What do you understand by Port? In the above case, could it happen that the loading place would not be a Port, and the ship consequently not covered while loading, and also consequently have deviated from the terms of Policy? Sept. 27, 1877. A READER.

[1st. The ordinary clause is as follows:-"With leave to call at all Ports and places on either side Cape Horn." In our Correspondent's case the liberty to call is confined to "Port or Ports on the West Coast" only. As the Port or Ports are not specified, the vessel would have to proceed direct from the Port of departure to the Port of destination; but if any Ports are visited on the West Coast, they must lie in the course of the ship, and they can only be called at for purposes connected with the main object of the voyage. 2nd. Under the common form of Lloyd's Policies it is agreed :-" It shall be lawful for the said ship in this voyage to proceed and sail to and touch and stay at any Ports or places whatsoever without prejudice to this insurance." The permission to call is, therefore confined to Ports and not to places. A Port implies "any harbour which vessels can enter, and where they can remain in safety." On the other hand, a "Port of Entry " is a Port at which a Custom-house is established. The guano-loading places are not Ports for Harbours, nor Ports of Entry, but open roadsteads; and, unless the Policy expressly provides for loading a cargo of guano, we are of opinion it would be voided if the ship was sent to a place other than a Port. If there was an understanding that the ship was to load guano, custom would probably explain the contract.]

CABIN STORES.

SIR, If a Master of a ship insures his own effects, and the vessel is lost, with all hands, is the holder of the policy obliged to pay for the cabin stores, or who is to pay? I fancy the Owners ought to pay for the cabin stores.-Yours, &c. Bangor, Dec. 29, 1876. A CAPTAIN'S WIFE.

[Unless the policy was specially drawn it would not cover the cabin stores. If the Shipowner finds the cabin, the loss would fall on him.]

SENDING GOODS BY UNAUTHORISED ROUTE.

SIR,-There are two rail and steam routes from London, &c., to Guernsey-one via Great Western Railway and Weymouth, and one via South Western Railway and Southampton. I order goods to be forwarded via Great Western Railway and Weymouth from London, &c., and they are so addressed, viz., "Via G. W. R. and Weymouth." The senders deliver the goods to a public carrier in the ordinary way, but, to my surprise, the goods come to hand via South Western Railway and Southampton-not in a solitary instance, but frequently. I have refused to pay carriage to the S. W. Company, and wish to know whether I am justified in this course? SARNIA.

Guernsey, Feb. 17, 1876.

[If goods are left with an Agent to be forwarded by a particular ship, and those goods are forwarded by another, and if any loss or delay is incurred, the sender with whom the agreement was made would have a good ground of action for damages. In the event of the goods being insured, the Policy would be void if filled in for the Weymouth steamer,

INSURANCE.

and they were forwarded by Southampton, but the carriage would have to be paid. The Railway Company would receive the goods from the public carrier, and not from the sender.]

CO-OWNER'S CONSENT TO ABANDON.

SIR,-I am Manager of an A 1 ship, and Owner of 16-64ths, the Captain 16-64ths, and four others have 8-64ths each. The ship has been stranded in the Pacific Ocean, and is now in Port. The Surveyors find the repairs, when executed, will cost more than the value of the ship. Before the ship can be condemned or sold, does it require the consent of all the Owners?-Yours, &c., SMALL SHIPOWNER.

May 12, 1877.

[The Managing Owner would act safely in obtaining the consent of a majority of Co-Owners; but he would be empowered, in pursuance of the authority conferred upon him, to give notice of abandonment, and to act for the benefit of all concerned.]

YARMOUTH ROADS AS A PLACE OF DISCHARGE.

SIR,-I loaded a cargo of maize in Baltimore to proceed to Queenstown for orders. Receiving orders for Great Yarmouth, I made inquiries from reliable parties, and found that vessels drawing over 14 feet could not enter the harbour. My Charter-party reads-" To proceed to a safe Port in the United Kingdom, where the vessel can always lay afloat with safety." I protested in Queenstown, and proceeded to Harwich, the nearest safe Port. The Merchant received the cargo under protest, and sued me for 3002. damages in the Ipswich County Court. The Merchant admitted that the vessel could not enter Yarmouth Harbour; but the case was argued as to whether or not Yarmouth Roads was a safe Port for a grain-laden vessel to discharge her cargo in the winter season. The Judge decided Yarmouth Roads was a safe Port of discharge for grain-laden vessels in winter time. Had I discharged in Yarmouth Roads, and had my vessel sustained any damage, where could I have looked for compensation?

ALEX. FRAZER, Master barque Sacramento, of Pictou. Harwich, March 29, 1876.

[If the vessel was insured, and protected under the Policy in discharging in a roadstead, the Underwriter would have had to make good the loss, the Judge having decided that it was safe to discharge there in the winter. We differ in opinion with the County Court Judge, and hold that the vessel should have been lightened in the roads to enter and lie afloat. (See pages 81 to 84, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

LIMITED LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS. SIR,-Two steamers were in collision. The Owners of the steamer in fault paid to the Owners of the other the full amount of her value at 87. per registered ton, that being her limit of liability. Under these circumstances, to attain this limitation in practice it was necessary to make application to the Admiralty Court, which involved considerable law charges and cost of bail bond. The Underwriters state that, having paid three-fourths of 81. per register ton, that is the extent of their liability. Are the Underwriters further liable for their proportion of law charges, &c., as I am informed there has been no decision upon this point? H.

Goole, Jan. 19, 1876.

[Costs may be claimed in collision cases apart from the damages. As to whether the Underwriters would be liable for more than three-fourths would depend upon the wording of the Policy. Unless made liable by express stipulation, we are of opinion they would not be liable.]

STAMPS ON POLICIES.-SEPARATE INTERESTS. SIR,-A is Managing Owner of a ship insured for 8,0002 A owns 21-64ths, or 2,6251.; B owns 31-64ths, or 3,875.; C owns 12-64ths, or 1,500l.; total 8,000l. Would 3d. per cent.on 8,000l. satisfy the Stamp Act, seeing the owners are engaged

INSURANCE.

in one common venture, and, as it were, have one common interest? or would the Policy require to be stamped for 3d. per cent. on 2,7004. 3d per cent. on 3,900l., or 3d. per cent. on 1,500.-Total 8,1007. A SUBSCRIBER.

Liverpool, April, 1876.

[If separate interests are insured under one Policy for different amounts, the fractional parts of every 1007. would be liable to the duty of threepence. A duty of twenty shillings would cover a Policy for 8,000l. in one sum; but, in the case represented, the amounts and duties would be as follows:-2,6251.=6s. 9d., 3,875l.=98. 9d., 1,500l.=3s. 9d.total 11. Os. 3d.; and therefore the Policy would be void if stamped for 11. only.-(See Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

HARBOUR MASTER'S AUTHORITY. SIR,-1st. I am Marine Manager of the Boating Company at Port Alfred, and I desire to know whether I can take a cargo boat to discharge the cargo alongside a coasting steamer before the Harbour Master has boarded her? He argues that the ship, having left a coasting Port 12 hours previously, must get pratique before I can go alongside. There is only one tugboat here, and he cannot get off to a steamer unless I take him, and at times this puts me to a great deal of trouble, as ours is a bar harbour. Of course I know that all foreign vessels require pratique. 2nd. It is the custom at Port Alfred for the Harbour Master to hoist the ensign at the Port-office when he considers it safe for vessels to enter the river. If I, as a certificated Pilot, and also the Captain of the steamtug, considered it safe, and the Captain of the ship considered it safe to come in, and at our own risk in coming in, the vessel should ground on the bar and do some damage to herself, how would it effect the Insurance ?-Yours, &c., W. CLIFFORD, M.M.

Cape of Good Hope, June 26, 1876.

[1st. In a short coasting voyage a vessel should not require to obtain pratique; and unless there is a special Colonial law requiring coasting vessels to be boarded by Harbour Masters, we should say that a cargo-boat, subject to the authorisation of the Custom-house rules in that respect, might go alongside. 2nd. There is said to be only 10 feet of water on the bar at low tide, and as there is usually a heavy sea on the bar, there would be a risk of blocking the channel

INSURANCE.

or damaging the vessel; and although entering when the signal was not displayed might not be dangerous, and the Master of a tug and a Pilot should be considered competent in such case to understand when a ship could be safely taken in. it would be imprudent to disobey the rules. It would be open to an Underwriter to resist payment in the event of a loss; but unless it could be proved that the damage was incurred recklessly, we are of opinion that the claims under the Policy could not be defeated.]

MACHINERY DAMAGED.

SIR,-On an ordinary Time Policy, with the running down clauses attached, a steamer, after getting a half-yearly survey by the Board of Trade, met with an accident on her voyage. The Engineers say:-"About 1.20 A.M. (being three hours at sea) we were in the engine-room, standing by our throttle gear, watching, to prevent the engines racing in the heavy sea, the ship pitching much, but in a very heavy sea the engines broke away from our control, breaking the crank of the forward engine, pitching the bearing to one side of the engine-room, bending the piston, and connecting rods, smashing the slide block and engine frame, also cracking the lid of cylinder cover, and shaking the whole of the engines. We got the engines stopped as soon as possible, disconnected the broken engine, lashed up the broken parts, and, after getting all cleared, commenced to work with after engine, and succeeded in bringing the ship back to Port without assistance." Under these circumstances, do you consider the Underwriters liable for the damage? Liverpool, June 26, 1876.

A SHIPOWNER.

[The losses in question would come under the definition of perils of the sea, as damage to the ship or machinery by the violent and immediate action of the winds and waves. We take it for granted that the ship and machinery are separately valued, and that the Policy includes the ordinary risks.(See, however, "Insurance of Burst Boiler," page 112, Maritime Notes und Queries, Vol. I.)]

"UNTIL SAFELY LANDED."

SIR,-A vessel of 1,000 tous entered the London Docks by mistake, and had to be removed to the West India Docks to discharge. She did not break bulk in the former, hut during her removal to the latter she was in collision, and her cargo was damaged thereby. The Merchants' policy contained the words, "Until the goods are safely landed." Can the Merchant claim upon the Underwriters under his policy, or would the fact that the vessel had been safely moored in the London Docks prevent his doing so ?-Yours, &c.,

London, Feb. 14, 1877.

INQUIRER.

[A risk suspended cannot be revived; but in the case represented the goods would not be safely landed until they were delivered on shore, even though in a damaged state. Goods must be landed within a reasonable time. The risks on the ship is terminated when she is moored in safety 24 hours; but this does not apply to the insurance of the goods. In our opinion the Underwriters would be liable on the policy.]

SEAWORTHY SHIP & NAVIGATION INSTRUMENTS.

SIR,-1. If a ship, A 1 at Lloyd's, and insured on a Time Policy for 12 months, sails from any Port, at any time during that period, in an unseaworthy state, should she meet with an accident, would her Underwriters be liable? 2. Could she be considered seaworthy without having proper Charts and Sailing Directions for her intended voyage?

Sept. 10, 1877.

SUBSCRIBER.

[1. In the case of the Frances, "Dugeon v. Pembroke," Ilouse of Lords, reported in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, March 26, 1877, their Lordships held :-"If ever a vessel was lost by perils of the sea,' understanding those words in the sense which the Courts of this country have

INSURANCE.

uniformly ascribed to them, this vessel undoubtedly was so; and the real question intended to be raised, therefore, is, whether a vessel not strong enough to resist the perils of the sea-in other words, unseaworthy-can be properly said to be 'lost by perils of the sea,' because it was by the force of the winds and waves that she went ashore and finally 'broke up and went to pieces.' A long course of decisions in the Courts of this country has established that causa proxima et non remota spectatur is the maxim by which these contracts of insurance are to be constructed, and that any loss caused immediately by the perils of the sea is within the Policy, though it would not have occurred but for the concurrent action of some other cause which is not within it. The only exception which has hitherto been established to the Underwriter's liability thus construed is to be found in the case of 'Thompson v. Hooper,' where it was alleged that the Shipowner himself knowingly and wilfully sent the ship to sea in an unseaworthy state, and that she was lost in consequence. It is only necessary to observe upon that case, that the knowledge and wilful misconduct of the Assured himself was an essential element in the decision arrived at. The Captain has the entire control of the vessel in respect of repair in foreign Ports, as of everything else; and if the sixth plea in this case were held to be sufficient without proof of the Shipowner's knowledge and wilfulness, the result would be that whenever the Captain failed in his duty in fitly repairing the vessel in a foreign Port, and the loss, though caused by perils of the sea, could be traced to the ship's defective condition, the Assured would lose the benefit of his Policy. Such a doctrine, once established, would extend equally to the negligent conduct of the ship in the course sailed by her, or her careless management in emergency, or the absence of reasonable and proper exertion on the part of the Captain and Crew." 2. If the ship was bound on a voyage with which the Master was not well acquainted, the failure, to the knowledge of the Owners, to provide Charts and Sailing Directions would, in our opinion, render the ship unseaworthy ab initio, and, of course, unseaworthy for the voyage.]

TORPEDOES AND INSURANCE RISKS.

SIR,-1. Are Underwriters who are exempt from war risks or, in other words, who are simply responsible for sea risks liable for the loss of a vessel caused by terpedoes laid down at the Port of destination, supposing that the said Port is or is not blockaded; or does the loss fall on the Underwriters on war risks? 2. Is not the loss of a ship caused by the violation of a blockade to be laid to the charge of Underwriters on sea risks only, at least as to the cargo, these Underwriters being responsible for barratry of the Master, and the loss through the violation of the blockade being attributable, therefore, directly to this barratry?—Yours, &c., Antwerp, May 16, 1877. UNDERWRITER.

[1st. The loss of a ship by torpedoes would not be covered by an ordinary policy, or one covering war risks, whether a Port was blockaded or not. 2nd. Violation of a blockade is not a sea risk, and, therefore, the Underwriters would not be liable under the policy. Violation of a blockade is not barratry of the Master.]

WINDLASS, BITTS, ANCHOR AND CHAIN. SIR,-During the fearful weather of Sunday, the 11th inst., a barquentine lying in Dungeness Roads rode so heavily as to break her windlass, tearing out both windlass bitts, paul bitt, &c., causing the loss of two anchors and about 170 fathoms of chain. As all the damage was caused by stress of weather, and not from any defect in the construction of the windlass, have I a claim for the same on an ordinary Lloyd's Policy of Insurance including "all risks"? SHIPOWNER.

Guernsey, March 24, 1876.

INSURANCE.

[In the common Lloyd's Policy there is a stipulation that the "ship and freight are warranted free of Average under 31. per cent., unless General, or the ship be stranded." The Underwriters, subject to that reservation, agree to indemnify the Assured from all perils, losses, and misfortunes. In these latter terms are included every species of damage to the ship or goods at sea by the violent and immediate action of the winds and waves, not comprehended in the ordinary wear and tear of the voyage, or directly referable to the acts and negligence of the Assured as its proximate cause. The Policy, also, includes "the body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, munition, artillery, boat, and other furniture, of and in the good ship." These specifications must embrace the windlass, bitts, chains, and anchors, and therefore, if their value is over 31. per cent., they should be paid for by the Underwriter as Particular Average. As a rule, however, the Underwriters reject all such claims, and class them under the head of wear and tear. We agree with Manley Hopkins (page 153, "General Average") that a sail, a chain, an anchor, or a windlass, are as much insurable parts of a ship as are the bulwark, spars, copper, or paint. As there is no contract between the Underwriter and the Insured that windlasses, chains and anchors are not included in the Policy, we are of opinion that the mere custom of Underwriters would not be a conclusive defence to an action on the Policy if it could be established that the loss was solely attributable to the elements, and not to defects.]

BURST BOILER.

SIR,-Do you consider that Underwriters on a steamer's Policy containing the clause "including all risks incidental to steam navigation" are liable for damages amounting to 3 per cent. caused by the explosion of a boiler defective in construction, but the proximate cause of the explosion being negligence on the part of the Engineer? Again, where the proximate cause is defective construction or unregarded wear and tear? Several claims of the above kinds have been made on Underwriters, and although counsel's opinion has been taken on the subject, there appears to be considerable doubt on the matter.-Yours, &c., ASSURANCE.

London, Sept. 12, 1876.

[The Policy would cover the whole time the vessel was at Bombay, for the usual words are " and while there." When the vessel was out of the limits of the Port the second Policy would attach although the 30 days had not expired.(See pages 125 and 130, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.) It would depend upon the wording of the Policies as t their over-lapping. The outward Policy was entered into for a voyage and for time, and if there were no stipulations by which the risk was limited to the Port, the Underwriters' liability would not terminate until the 30 days had run out. As regards the homeward Policy, when the words “at and from" are inserted, the risk attaches directly the insurance is effected, and covers all losses in Port; but if this Policy

INSURANCE.

was not to take effect until all the cargo was on board, or the vessel was ready for sailing, or out of the Port, the question of a double policy, in case of loss, might arise, if a disaster happened before the expiration of the 30th day.-(As to Double Policy, see letters at pages 83 and 217, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

DEVIATION AND TOWAGE.

SIR,-A question of importance to the Shipping Interests has arisen as to an Owner's liability for loss of or damage to cargo in the following circumstances:-A steamer laden with a valuable cargo falls in with a sailing vessel disabled and flying signals of distress. The Masters of both ships having agreed upon the sum which the Owners of the ship in distress are to pay to the Owners of the steamer for Salvage services, the ship is taken in tow, and the steamer proceeds with her to a Port out of the line of the steamer's route, and where, in consequence of having the vessel in tow, the steamer gets stranded or comes into collision with another ship, by which her cargo is lost or damaged. Would the loss fall upon the Underwriters who had originally insured the cargo, or upon the Owners of the steamer which had deviated from her voyage? SHIPOWNERS.

Glasgow, Jan. 7, 1876.

[If the Policy permitted the steamer to tow vessels in distress, or deviate for such a purpose, the loss incurred on the part of the steamer would fall on the Underwriters. In the absence of such a stipulation, unless the deviation was to save life, the Policy would be void. As to damage done by collision to another ship, that is a question as to the wording of the Policy.-(See "Heard v. Holman," Common Pleas, May 2, 1865.) A steamer that deviated to take a vessel in tow, sank the latter by collision, and her Owners were held liable for the loss.-(The Thetis (s) and Sardis (s), Admiralty Court, July 1, 1869.)]

SCUTTLING TO PREVENT FIRE.

SIR,-If in a crowded dock a vessel is on fire, and there is imminent danger of the conflagration spreading to surrounding vessels, and a ship on each side of the one burning is scuttled to confine the fire to the one ship, what would be the remedy of the Owner of the property sacrificed, and against whom-proximately and ultimately? Also, in the case of a house next to one burning being blown up to prevent the fire spreading, how could compensation be obtained?Yours, &c., ASSURANCE.

London, Sept. 6, 1876.

[If a ship in a dock is on fire, it might be possible to haul the ships alongside away from her; but if this could not be done, and the vessels to starboard and port were scuttled to save them from burning, the measures taken for the safety of ship and cargo, if there be cargo on board, should fall on General Average, for the voluntary sacrifice would be made for the purpose of saving the ship and cargo from destruction; but the scuttling might avert a total loss. In Fletcher v. Alexander," Common Pleas, April 30, 1868, Chief Justice Bovill adhered to the principle laid down by "Marshall on Insurance," namely, that "where any sacrifice is deliberately and voluntarily made, or any expense is fairly and bonâ fide incurred, to prevent a total loss or some great disaster, such sacrifice or expense is the proper subject of general contribution, and ought to be ratably borne by the Owners of the ship, freight, and cargo, so that the loss may fall equally on all, according to the equitable maxim of the civil law, Nemo debet locupletari alienâ jacturâ. This general principle has been acted upon in all Courts." That principle should govern the law in the case mentioned. If, for the safety of ship and cargo, it be necessary to damage and destroy another ship, the loss is said to be an object of General Average contribution. If a number of ships are lashed together, and one takes fire

LIGHTERAGE.

and the crews of the others unite in scuttling the burning ship for the safety of the rest, the loss of the ship so sunk is said to be a General Average loss, to which all those saved thereby must contribute; and the law is the same if a Crew, for the safety of their own ship, cut the cable of another.-(“ Arnould on Marine Insurance," Vol. II., page 782.)]

LIGHTERAGE.

LIGHTERAGE AND DEMURRAGE.

SIR, A vessel laden with coals and chartered to deliver afloat, was kept three days over the time allowed for discharging, through want of craft. When no craft were alongside for the cargo she took in ballast, and completed it before she was discharged, but the ballasting in no way interfered with the discharge. Is she entitled to Demurrage? Dartmouth, March 23, 1876. T. H. S.

[The ballasting of the ship would not deprive the Shipowner of his claim for Demurrage if he was prepared to give delivery and the Merchant had no craft ready to receive the cargo.]

LIGHTENING TO REACH PORT.

SIR,-My vessel was chartered at Newcastle to load a cargo of coals for Yarmouth (Isle of Wight), and the Charter specities" In case the ship requires lightening to get to the quay, the same to be at Merchant's expense." I arrived at Yarmouth on the 18th inst., and found that there was not water enough to get into the harbour without lightening. gave the merchant notice on the 20th inst., and, owing to his not lightening the ship sufficiently, I was unable to get alongside of the quay until the night of the 24th inst. Should not my Lay-days commence from the day I gave the Merchant notice?

I

CHARLES DENYER, Master of the brig Harkaway, Yarmouth (I.W.), March 28, 1876. of Shoreham.

[If the vessel was chartered to discharge at a particular place, and not as near thereto as she could safely get, the Lay-days would commence when the ship was at her berth. On the other hand, if the name of the Port only was mentioned the Lay-days would begin to run when the vessel reached as near to the discharging berth, with her full cargo on board, as she could safely get. For legal decisions see pages 81 and 82, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.]

LIGHTERAGE AND HOISTING.

SIR, I chartered a vessel recently to carry a cargo of guano from one of the Peruvian deposits to a Port on the Continent; and two of the clauses in her Charter-party read as follows, viz. :-"1. Cargo to be discharged according to custom of the Port, at the rate of not less than 35 tons per working day. 2. All charges for lighterage or towage to be paid by the Owners of the ship." The vessel on her arrival was obliged to lighten a portion of her cargo to enable her to reach her discharging berth, and the cost of discharging the cargo into lighters, as also the hire of the craft, was borne by the ship; but when settling the freight account with the Consignees, they put in a claim for again discharging the lighter, asserting that they had a right to do so by virtue of the above No. 2 clause. Is the ship liable for such further charge? I understand it is the custom at such Port for the Consignees to discharge the lighters of all cargoes that are discharged, such as the vessel referred to was, viz. in bags.— Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER.

Liverpool, March 1, 1877.

[The charge for the lighter would fall in this case on the Shipowner, but the charge for hoisting the bags on to the quay should be borne by the Merchant. The cargo was put out of the ship and at the disposal of the Merchant, and there is no contract that the Shipowner is to discharge the guano from the lighter on to the quay.]

LIGHTERS AND DEMURRAGE. SIR,-My vessel, the Liela, of Liverpool, was chartered to load a cargo of burnt ore in the River Tyne, and it was arranged that she should be loaded partly at a wharf, and when I considered ship had received sufficient quantity for her safety at said wharf, the remainder had to be brought alongside by lighters to where I should have ship afloat at the buoys in the river. On the second day after commencing to load the Shipper sent a lighter alongside with cargo, and wished me to take the ore into the after hold, which would have caused ship to lie badly. At this time I was receiving cargo from the wharf, and refused to take cargo from the lighter. The Merchants claim demurrage from me for this craft. Can they do so?-Yours, &c.,

CHARLES STRINGER, Master.

Newcastle, Mar. 21, 1877.

[When the vessel was alongside the wharf it would be implied that all the cargo was to be loaded from the quay. The Shippers sent a lighter alongside when the vessel was at the wharf, and the Master declined to take the ore on board because the trim of the ship might have been altered, and her safety endangered. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Shipowner would not be liable for Demurrage through the detention of the lighter.]

TONNAGE DUES ON GOODS IN LIGHTERS. SIR,-My vessel was chartered to bring a cargo of wood from Wyburg to Wivenhoe, at which latter place I arrived on the 1st inst., and now find that the cargo is destined for Colchester, and in consequence of its having to be taken there in river craft, my ship is called upon to pay Tonnage Dues at the rate of 6d. per register ton, for which there is not a particle of accommodation afforded, the mooring buoys in the river being private property, for the use of which an extra charge is made. If the cargo of any vessel is landed in Wivenhoe, no charge can be made; and therefore one might naturally infer that when a ship discharges her cargo at the place to which she is chartered, no charges should ensue in consequence of the Receiver or purchaser removing the goods to any other place. I am of opinion that these charges are levied in consequence of the misconstruction of the Act of Parliament. How am I to proceed to ascertain the law upon the matter, and can such a tax be levied upon the unfortunate Shipowners, whose unequalled burdens appear to be continually upon the increase?-Yours, &c.,

HENRY PRICE, Master of the Danube. Wivenhoe, Oct. 5, 1876.

[Tonnage Dues are levied on all ships entering the river Colne and proceeding above Wivenhoe. Our Correspondent's ship did not proceed above Wivenhoe, and therefore he is not liable to pay the Tonnage Dues on the lighters. When the cargo was over the ship's side, all charges, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, would fall on the goods. If, however, our Correspondent contracted to deliver the cargo at Colchester, he would have to pay all the charges. (The law as to charges on cargo, and the manner of proceeding to recover the dues from the Merchant, is explained on page 24, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

C. I. F. AND LOSS IN LIGHTERS. SIR,-We shipped a cargo of coals on board one of our steamers to a Merchant in a foreign Port at so much per ton C. I. F. At the Port of discharge the steamer discharged the coals into the Merchant's lighter, and in transit from the boat the lighter was overturned and the coal lost. Who loses the freight on the lost coal-the Receivers of them, or we as Owners of the steamer?-Yours, &c.,

Newcastle, March 12, 1877. STEAMSHIP OWNERS. [If the Merchant engaged a lighter to take possession of his goods, and delivery was given to him or his servants, the Shipowner would be absolved from all liability for the loss of

the cargo after it left the ship's side; and if the purchaser insured the coal, and made the Underwriters liable for rik of craft, he could recover under the Policy.]

COAL CARGO.

SIR, I chartered a steamer to load coals for the Mediter ranean, the Charty-party providing that "the co ls be put on board and taken from on board at Charterer's risk and expense," and for payment of freight "on the intake weight stipulated on the Bills of Lading," and the Bills of Lading stating that Consignee "pay the freight as per Charterparty," the terms of the two documents thus being identical. On the steamer's arrival at her destination the cargo was dis ch: rged directly into lighters without being weighed, the Captain merely taking a clean receipt for all the cargo he had on board. On my application to the Charterer for the payment of the freight, after some considerable delay, he stated that, on the coals being weighed out of the lighter, there was a considerable deficiency, and he not only refused to pay the freight on the intake weight as per Charter-party and Bills of Lading, but also claimed upon the ship for short delivery, and, further, for the cost of discharging at about 6d. per ton. Has the Charterer any legitimate claim upon me? -Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER. London, Dec. 16, 1876.

[As there was an agreement to pay the freight on the intake quantity, that would govern the contract; and if all the cargo put on board was delivered, no deduction could be made from the freight for short delivery. As regards lighterage, the expense would have to be borne by the Receiver of the cargo, as it was to be taken free from alongside. Baron Martin, in "Patterson v. Wilson" (the Iris, Exchequer), held that the duty was cast upon the Charterers to unload within a given time, and that they must pay for the hire of lighters although they had been engaged by the Master.]

DOCKING AND CHANGE OF DOCK.

SIR,-My vessel arrived from Quebec with a mixed cargo about two-thirds of which were deals and the remainder oak timber. The Consignee of the deals gave me orders at Gravesend to discharge in the Regent's Canal, which orders I carried out. The Consignee of the timber will not take delivery of the oak in the Regent's Canal Dock, but claims delivery of his goods in the Surrey Commercial Dock. My Charter states:-"To proceed to London," and, "If discharged in one of the docks in the River Thames, the Freighter to pay twothirds of the dock dues." The Regent's Canal Company allow me to deliver overside. What, then, have I to do, and who is pay the expense of lightering the oak? T. HALVORSEN,

Master Harald Haarfager.

London, Sept. 6, 1877. [The lighterage of the oak would be at the expense of the receiver of the timber, and if the Consignee desires the ship to change docks, the charges would have to be borne by him, including Insurance, whilst moving from one dock to the other.]

LIGHTS.

LIGHT DUES ON WRECKS.

SIR, Is a barque, bound from Baltimore to Drogheda, and sunk three miles south of Drogheda Bar and one mile and a half from shore, liable for light dues on the above voyage? The ship is about to be sold as a wreck where she now lies.Yours, &c., JAMES ROBINSON,

Agent to Sunderland and Newcastle Clubs. Drogheda, Jan. 15, 1877.

[The Dues would be payable for all the lights passed by the ship up to the time of her wreck.-(See letter in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Jan. 11, 1877.)]