MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

protection against the imposition of fresh fees and the interference of Surveyors; but it would appear the certificate did not serve to protect the Owner of the vessel in the case represented. Surveyors are instructed to inspect the lanterns and screens of vessels in Port, and the outdoor Officers of Customs have been ordered to report to the Surveyors any infraction of the regulations observed by them. When a Surveyor passes lanterns he is authorised to indelibly impress some part with a mark prescribed by the Board of Trade, and a certificate is to be given to the Master of the ship. When the regulations have not been complied with, "the Surveyor making an inspection should be careful to fill up one of the forms supplied for the purpose, specifying the additions or alterations required, and give or send it by post to the Owner, Master, or Agent." 2nd. If a Surveyor observes that the lanterns, lamps, or screens are not in accordance with the Act, or the regulations in respect thereto, he is not compelled to see the Master before serving the notice; but if a Surveyor goes on board a vessel in the absence of the Master, and is told that a certificate has been granted, it is our opinion that he exceeds his instructions by taking steps involving expense before satisfying himself that the statement with respect to the previous examination is correct. A certificate, however, is of no effect if it is found that any particulars stated therein "are not in accordance with the state of things on board." If the reflectors of the lamp, and the stanchions and boards, did not require alteration, and had been passed, the facts should be represented to the Board of Trade. 3rd. There is no appeal from the orders of

66

Surveyors of Lights and Fog Signals" to any Court of Law, even although a vessel may be detained, and her Owners put to considerable cost and inconvenience. The Inspectors may be paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund.]

LIGHT DUES.-AGENT'S LIABILITY. SIR,-In cases where the Customs clerk makes out a Light Bill for a vessel, and the Agent pays the same, can the Customs legally call upon such Agent, a month after the vessel has sailed, to pay more because the official made a mistake and charged too little? I am told that the 25th and 26th Vic., chap. 63, sec. 44 makes the Agent liable for the clerk's mistake. I say such only makes the Agent, &c., liable for the lights as first claimed. BROKER.

Exeter, Oct. 10, 1877.

[A receipt for Light Dues is to be given to the person paying the same, and clearance or transire is not to be granted unless the receipt is produced to the Officers of Customs.(Section 400, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) An Agent is made liable for the payment of Light Dues, but he may retain the amount so paid by him out of any moneys in his hands received on account of the ship.-(Sections 44 and 45, Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, 25 and 26 Vic., c. 63.) If a vessel has been cleared on the production to the Officer of Customs by the Agent of a receipt for Light Dues, we should say that the Agent should not be made liable for the loss if he has no funds out of which to repay himself, for if the Owner or Master fails to pay the Light Dues on demand the Collector may distrain the goods, tackle, or anything on board a ship, and sell the same at the end of three days.— (Section 401, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.)]

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.

SIR, To whom should an old Shipmaster apply to procure the pension? He paid many years to the fund called "The Merchant Seamen's and Greenwich Hospital Fund."-Yours, & C., ONE OF YOUR OLDEST SUBSCRIBERS. London, Nov. 28, 1876.

[Our Correspondent should apply to the Registrar-General

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

of Shipping and Seamen, Basinghall Street, or to the Shipping Master at the St. Katharine Dock-house, and he will receive a form to fill up if he is entitled to the pension.]

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.

SIR,-Am I, as a Master Mariner, during my stay on shore -say 12 or 18 months-bound to pay to the Merchant Seamen's Fund; and if I have not paid during my stay on shore, am I deprived of the benefit of the Fund ?Yours, &c., Nov. 28, 1876. ONE INTERESTED.

[In the case of Masters who discharge their Crews at a Mercantile Marine Office, the voluntary contributions are to be paid before a Shipping Master-(Section 24, Act of 1851); but those who do not appear before a Shipping Master for the purpose of discharge shall attend at stated periods before some Shipping Master appointed by the Board of Trade, and the yearly contribution made at one time must not be less than 28. or some multiple of 2s.-(Section 25). There must be a period when a Master leaves the sea through being physically incapacitated from further duty. The payments to the Fund should then cease, and an application be made for the pension. If a Master is merely out of employment, and intends, as soon as he can meet with a command, to go to sea again, we should say that it would be sufficient if he paid up his arrears, in accordance with the 28. per calendar month of service, as provided by Section 24.]

SHIPPING MASTERS' AUTHORITY.

SIR,-I went to a Mercantile Marine Office to pay off my Crew. The wages accounts for the voyages were perfectly correct, and cash advanced, &c., agreed upon between myself and Crew. No dispute whatever took place, but the Shipping Master demanded my wages account book for the voyage. Can he compel me to produce this? A SHIPMASTER. Plymouth, Jan. 18, 1876.

[Under Sections 13 and 174 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the Shipping Master would be empowered to call for the production of papers, and a failure to supply the same would render a Captain liable to a penalty.]

ENGINEERS AND MASTERS.

SIR,-Seeing a report of the case of the Engineers of the steamer Commodore in your valuable paper of the 14th inst., I should like to know what position Engineers hold in a ship. I consider them myself as Petty Officers. They certainly have no executive power. During a conversation with one lately, he said that the Captain had no right to go into the engine-room or interfere with his work in any way. This I consider wrong. When a man is appointed Master of a ship he is Master of the whole ship, and there cannot possibly be two Masters.-Yours, &c., MASTER MARINER.

Bristol, Feb. 15, 1877.

[Engineers are Certificated Officers under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862; but they are not Masters, and cannot supersede a Master's authority. Some Shipowners give Engineers certain powers in opposition to the Master's rights, but the law cannot recognise any divided command. As regards going on shore without leave, we answered this question in November 1873.-(See letter, Maritime Notes and Queries, page 210, Vol. I.)]

MASTER'S ATTENDANCE MONEY. SIR,-On Sept. 18, 1875, having the misfortune to abandon a ship from Pensacola, through the vessel getting waterlogged, I suffered great hardships and the loss of seven of the Crew. On my arrival in England, on Dec. 17, I was told by the Collector of Customs that I must not go to sea, as there would be a Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of the ship and I was served with an official notice, dated Dec. 30, 1875

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

that the Inquiry would take place on Jan. 6, 1876, and which investigation did take place. On Jan. 7 I was honourably acquitted of all blame, and the said Court held me entitled to my expenses. The Chief Officer was stopped on his arrival in London by the Board of Trade and paid at the rate of 12s. 6d. per day, and his passage (2nd class) was paid to Newcastle to attend the Inquiry; and, on its conclusion, the same fare home was allowed. What rate of pay should I have under the circumstances? I was stopped on Dec. 17, 1875, and the last day of the Inquiry was Jan. 7. Through the stoppage, by order of the Board of Trade, I was unable to accept a good situation that was offered to me, which would have been a great benefit to me from the destitute condition in which I arrived home. SUFFERER. Newcastle, Feb. 9, 1876.

[The compulsory attendance of Masters of ships at Courts of Inquiry is frequently attended with hardship and inconvenience, but the Board of Trade have power to award compensation to witnesses, and our Correspondent should apply to that department. The ordinary allowance to Masters is one guinea per day and their travelling expenses; but this is not an adequate remuneration in every instance.]

[Shares can be purchased in a vessel by a British colonial subject; but the Part-Owner of a vessel has no power to transfer the registration from a Port of the United Kingdom to a Colony on the mere sale of shares. All the Owners and Mortgagees must join in a declared request to change the registry from one Port to another, and the application must be made at the Port where the ship is registered.-(See Sections 89 and 90, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) By the 31st Section of the Act, all Governors of British Colonies are empowered to act as Registrars, and on a legal form being signed and completed here, the vessel might be registered in a Colony. Ve sels that were on the Register prior to the Act of 1854 are required to be remeasured, and the new certifiante is not issued until the surveys are completed.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

GERMAN AND DUTCH TRANSFERS. SIR,-I arrived here some time ago with my vessel from a foreign Port, having sustained considerable damage from bad weather on my passage. After having disebarged my cargo, I intended to repair the ship, but found, however, that the amount of my expenses for repairing might far exceed the value of the ship. I therefore applied to two competent men here to examine the state of my vessel-one a ship's Carpenter and the second an Agent for the French Lloyd's. They both came to the conclusion that the ship wis not seaworthy, and consequently condemned her. My ship was under the German flag, and being insured in Germany for total loss, my insurance money was paid on the representation of my certificate of condemnation. The ship being then sold by public auction, I rebought her, and, having now completed the necessary repairs, I intend to go to sea in her, and have obtained for that purpose the Dutch flag. A Convention, I am informed, exists between Great Britain and Germany. Can the German or British authorities prevent me taking this ship to sea? I have had nothing to do with any Officer of the Board of Trade, the condemnation having taken place as stated above. Have I to allow any official of the Board of Trade to visit and examine my ship, or can the Custom House here or any other authorities interfere with me? According to my humble opinion, the ship being now under the Dutch flag, they have no jurisdiction whatever.-Yours, &c., Hartlepool, Aug. 6, 1876.

A CAPTAIN.

[An understanding has been arrived at between the British and some foreign Governments as to the transfer of British ships to foreign flags; and if the ship was sold by public auction and bought by a foreigner, and registered, under a foreign flag, there is no British law under which the authorities in the United Kingdom, British or German, would be empowered to prevent the ship from proceeding to sea.]

NATIONAL CHARACTER.

SIR,-A ship, originally British, is transferred to a Belgian citizen, who holds her in trust for her former Owners, and who has her registered as a Belgian ship. Is that vessel liable to forfeiture, under Section 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, for concealing her British and assuming a foreign character? Is it not that she has no British character to conceal (vide Sections 18 and 19), and that she does not "assume a foreign flag, as she has a certificate entitling her to carry it? Supposing that the Belgian certificate of registry had been obtained irregularly, would that fact affect the position of the party for whom the ship was held in trust, he having had no suspicion or notice of any such irregularity? Again, if a ship which has been sold to parties abroad, and registered or not, as the case may be, but is all the while held in trust, is returned to her former Owners, and re-registered as a British ship, the Customs authorities meanwhile being perfectly cognisant of the foregoing particulars, and only granting the register after being satisfied of the title from the foreigner, can the authorities, after that re-registry, and after allowing the ship to navigate for some time as a British ship, thereby causing innocent third parties to become interested in her or creditors by her, eventually take possession of her for an offence which ought to have been punished at the time of commission, if punished at all? Is not the re-registry and granting clearances an equivalent to a condonation of the offence? If forfeiture is allowed to take place at any time, a ship might be seized for having broken the biockade during the Russian war!Yours, &c., P. K.

Newcastle, July 29, 1876.

[If the ship was bona fide transferred to a Belgian citizen and registered under the Belgian laws, she would be divested of her British character and entitled to assume the Belgian flag. Section 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act is directed against the undue assumption of the British national character, or of a foreign character, with the intent to deceive persons entitled by British law to inquire into the character of the ship. There could be no re-registration unless there had been an actual transfer to the foreign flag.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

FOREIGN VESSELS IN COASTING TRADE. SIR,-Can vessels (formerly British) now registered in a foreign country trade as coasters in the general Coasting Trade, and carry foreign colours with a full Crew of British hands on board? Will the Board of Trade permit these vessels to run, or can they compel them to comply with any other rules except lights and fog signals ?-Yours, &c., Feb. 28, 1877. BROKERS.

[Any foreign vessel may fly a foreign flag and be employed in the Coasting Trade of the United Kingdom, even if she has a Crew of British Seamen. The 4th part of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, however, applies to all foreign steamships carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom, and such ships are subject to the same provisions with respect to the certificates of the Masters, Mates, and Engineers to which British steamers are subject.-(Section 291.) Foreign steamers in the Coasting Trade would have to be surveyed and certificated.]

DECKLOAD.

SIR,-Does the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, prohibit me from bringing home a decload, three feet high, of pitch pine deals or planks from the Southern Ports to the United Kingdom? The vessel will sail homeward bound in January next, and, in all probability, arrive some time in February at her Port of discharge.-Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER. Nov. 20, 1876.

[Any vessel may bring deals, battens, or other light wood goods to the United Kingdom if she arrives before the 16th of April, stowed to a height of three feet on deck; but not pitch pine or heavy wood goods.--(The Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, is appended to Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

DECK CARGO AND TONNAGE. SIR,-On my arrival at Queenstown from Java I paid my Channel Light Dues on the register tonnage of my vessel (584 60-100 tons). I was ordered to Greenock to discharge. On my arrival there the Customs authorities came on board and measured two spare spars and two small water-casks which I carried on deck, and I was required to pay Harbour and extra Light Dues thereon. Is this in conformity with the Act of Parliament? If so, I think it a great hardship, as I am compelled to carry the spare spars to make my ship seaworthy and eligible for a class.-Yours, &c., H. P. PRINCE,

Master barque B. Webster, of Portland (Me.). Greenock, June 11, 1877.

[In our impression of July 26, 1876, we said:-" Provisions, it has been held, are stores; and therefore water may be stores.' If so, many a Sailor may have to be deprived of water through the ordinary deck cask being left behind in consequence of the new measuring process. Whether a cask of water or fresh provisions, if slung from a stay or otherwise suspended, would be deemed' upon deck,' is another knotty point to solve." On November 27, 1876, in a leading article, we gave further details as to the practical working of the Act, and explained that the Board of Trade had ordered that the space occupied by live stock for consumption during the voyage was not to be measured in. The two spare spars and the water-cask should not, in our opinion, come within "timber, stores, or other goods," and the spirit of the Act would be carried out by exempting the space occupied by them from tonnage.]

DECK REGISTERED TONNAGE. SIR,-Is a Shipmaster forced to pay Harbour Dues, inward and outward Pilotage, on the deckload measurement tonnage of a vessel leaving the Port in ballast after having discharged

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

a cargo of deals; or need he only pay Light Dues on the deck tonnage ?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER.

Waterford, Dec. 18, 1876.

[Harbour Dues and inward Pilotage would be payable on the deckload measurement. In clearing out in ballast there would be no cargo on deck; consequently, the tonnage cxpressed in the clearance paper would be that on which Light Dues, if any, are payable.]

PIT PROPS AND DECK CARGO. SIR,-What is the law about deckloads for props shipped hence for Wales? There are many versions here. Some say that, according to the new Act, vessels are only allowed to take three feet on deck; others say any amount, provided the ship pays 1.10f. for measuring fees, and 2d. per ton for Light Dues per 100 cubic feet. Can a vessel take over and above three feet on deck in height ?-Yours, &c., BONNIN, Ship Agent.

Bordeaux, Nov. 9, 1876.

[Vessels arriving after the last day in October and before the 16th of April may carry on deck only three feet of pit props; but, as a matter of course, there is no restriction during the summer months.]

TIMBER OR WOOD ON DECK.

SIR,-How do you interpret the clause in the new Shipping Bill relating to the carriage of deck cargo after the 1st of November? There are three paragraphs: A mentions heavy woods, B regulates amount of spars as stores, C relates to deals, battens, and other light wood goods, limiting the same to three feet in height. Does the three feet proviso apply to paragraph A, or to C only? In other words, will a ship be allowed to carry three feet of heavy timber, or only deals and battens on deck during the winter months?Yours, &c., E. B. HATFIELD.

Liverpool, Sept. 1, 1876.

66

[We are of opinion that as coals are "necessaries" for a ship's use, they would come under the general term of "Stores." "Necessaries," said Dr. Lushington, in the case of the Comtesse de Fregeville, A. C. June 13, 1862, mean primarily indispensable repairs, anchors, cables, sails-all things immediately necessary; provisions I include also, for the Crew must be fed."-(See "Insurance and Ship's Provisions," page 58, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

BOATMEN PUTTING OFF.

SIR,-On Tuesday, the 20th, while blowing a heavy gale, I and three men put off to a small yacht in the roads which had her ensign flying in her rigging, Union downward. When we got to her we found one man on board, and the Captain and Mate on board another vessel. We offered our assistance, but he would not take us, as he saw the steamboat coming out. Is the Master not bound to pay us for going?-Yours, &c., JOS. RUSSELL, Fisherman.

Portland, Feb. 28, 1877.

[Our Correspondent might establish a claim for loss of time if he put off in answer to a signal of distress, and the Master declined the offer of his services.-(See pages 47 and

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

200, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and page 157, Voi. III.)]

DISTRESS AND ENTERING PORT. SIR,-What constitutes a vessel arriving in distress? Does a steamer putting into harbour for coal and landing passengers come under that head ?-Yours, &c.,

JOHN COX, Harbour Master.

Portsmouth, April 19, 1877.

[A vessel entering Port to wait for a fair wind, or to land passengers, is not in distress. If a steamer was damaged, or had been imperilled, or was seeking shelter from a storm, either of these incidents would constitute distress; but the simple action of coaling and landing passengers would not necessarily come within the term.]

ICE AND CONTRARY WINDS. SIR,-Has the Receiver of a cargo a right to detain a vessel under a writ charging the Master with neglect of duty, and holding him responsible for loss sustained in consequence of the vessel having been detained through ice and contrary winds at the loading Port, although it can be clearly shown that the detention was not caused through neglect on the part of the Master, but through the act of God? The case has been before the Court, but the plaintiff having no evidence to substantiate his charge, it has been postponed until June. The vessel having to remain in Port for the personal evidence of the Crew until the above-mentioned time, to what extent will the Shipowner have a claim for compensation if the case be decided in his favour? A MASTER OF A FOREIGN-GOING VESSEL. Ipswich, April 27, 1876.

[If the Court should decide that the ship was delayed on the voyage by causes beyond the control of the Master, the Shipowner would have a claim for damages against the Receiver of the cargo, at whose instance the proceedings have been instituted, for all the enforced detention of the ship.]

INABILITY TO PROCEED.

SIR,-I signed articles at Cardiff on board a British ship bound to Rio Janeiro, and when in the Port I went to the hospital. The Captain demanded me on board, but the officials of the hospital objected, and being so poorly the Captain requested me to sign a blank account of wages, which I objected to do. I am still on the articles. I have also to state that the Captain deprived me of part of my tools, which has prevented me from joining a ship. Which way am I to act ?-Yours, &c., SEAMAN.

Sunderland, June 9, 1877.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

If wreck is picked up at sea beyond the limits of the United Kingdom by Masters of foreign ships, the Receivers are not to interfere, unless called upon to do so by parties interested in the property. Anchors and chains recovered by British Salvors beyond the three miles limit would therefore have to be given up to the Receiver of Wreck, unless the Owners of the wreck, or their Agents, were on the spot to receive the same, and no question as to Salvage demanding the interposition of the Receiver were to arise. An Owner may take measures for picking up anchors or chains, either within or beyond the jurisdiction of her Majesty, and land such property, or place it on board his ship, without the interference of Receivers, although the latter might, if necessary, demand proof of ownership. Wreck or derelict, if found within the limits of the United Kingdom, must not be carried to a foreign Port and there sold, under penalty to the Salvors of four years' penal servitude.-(Section 479, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) Consuls-General may claim wreck belonging to foreign subjects, as Agents of the Owner, when brought into the United Kingdom.-(Section 19, Merchant Shipping Act, 1855. See also page 49, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

WRECK OFF HASTINGS.

SIR, I had the misfortune to collide with the sunken steamship Vesuvius, off Hastings, on the 13th inst., the night being very dark, with snow. The anchor caught in the wreck, taking it off the rail, parting the chain, and doing considerable damage, but to what extent I cannot ascertain at present. It was done through there not being a cautionary light put on the wreck, which I think is a very serious matter, and a grave neglect of those in charge of the wreck, as in some cases it might cause a serious loss of life and a great amount of property. Can I get redress, and, if so, who must I sue for damage and detention? Mine is a new ship, and I knew nothing of the wreck before the casualty. JOSEPH WATERS,

Master of the schooner Mary Waters.

Ramsgate, April 18, 1876.

[The wreck is outside the limits of British jurisdiction, and, if totally abandoned and no one in possession, our Correspondent would have no legal remedy against the Owners of the vessel, or the Trinity Corporation, for not exhibiting a light to mark the danger. The Board of Trade might be applied to as "Superintendents of Wreck" (see Section 439, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854); but if the vessel is insured, the Underwriters would be liable for the "hurt" received by an accident at sea.]

SHIP'S ARTICLES AND CLEARANCE. SIR,-The vessel I command completed her homeward cargo (rice) in Rangoon on the eve of last Good Friday, the 14th of April, and on the morning of the same day a note was sent from the Master Attendant's office to iny Agents, advising that Good Friday and following day would be kept as holidays, and requesting them to forward a cheque for my vessel's Light Dues, Port Charges, &c., and on receipt of the same they would send her clearance. The cheque was sent and all necessary papers, except the ship's articles, to the Agent's office before the last of my cargo was on board, and without my being advised of the exception until the Master Attendant's office was closed. On Saturday, the 15th, the Shipping or Master Attendant's office was open for a limited time to despatch steamers, and some Seamen were paid off from a sailing ship; but the official refused to deliver my ship's articles up until I paid an extra fee of 16 rupees. This I paid under protest, or otherwise I could not have obtained the articles before the office hours on Monday, and could not have sailed until Tuesday morning. My ship was cleared at the Custom House on the 15th, which office was open as usual on that day; and as my articles were detained on Thursday, was the above a legal charge?Yours, &c., SHIPMASTER.

Sept. 7, 1876.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

[The Articles of Agreement must be produced before the Shipping Master. "Shipmaster" did not send the Articles to the Agent, and therefore the vessel could not be cleared out. If the 16 rupees were claimed as a fine under the Indian Shipping Act for not complying with the law, there would be no redress; but, in the absence of exact information, we could not undertake to offer an opinion on the legality or illegality of the exaction.]

DEPOSITIONS.

SIR,-18 it compulsory for a British Shipmaster, in a case of collision, to make a deposition, and, if so, to whom; and is it necessary that the same should be published? Is a foreigner compelled to do the same ?-Yours, &c., Newcastle, Sept. 1, 1876. INQUIRER.

[The 448th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, deals with the power of Receivers to take depositions. Further power is given under Section 31 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, to Wreck Commissioners; and by Section 32, whenever any ship on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom, or any British ship elsewhere, has been stranded or damaged, and any witness is found at any place in the United Kingdom, the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, under Section 432 of the Act of 1854, order a formal investigation. If a vessel has been in collision and damaged, and is in distress, the Master of a British ship would have to make a deposition before the Receiver of Wreck, and these documents are published in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette. A Wreck Commissioner would be empowered to take the deposition of a foreign Shipmaster.(See pages 35 and 37, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and page 99, Vol. II.)]

WAIF IN THE RIGGING.

SIR,-Having been at sea on Sunday, the 12th, in one of our luggers, it then blowing a hurricane, we saw a vessel with a waif in his main rigging. We went to him. We desire to know if a waif signifies a signal of distress or not? Margate, March 14, 1876. BOATMEN.

[A waif in the rigging is not a signal of distress under Section 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873.-(See page 198, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

Shipping Act, 1854)-before the ship puts to sea, if practicable, and, if not, as soon afterwards as possible-(Section 155). If, therefore, it is practicable to sign articles on sailing on a Sunday, it would be legal to do so. The contracts prohibited by the "Lord's Day Act" are not every contract made on Sunday, but contracts made in the exercise of a man's trade or ordinary calling. Thus, it has been decided in "R. v. Whitnash" that a contract made on Sunday by a farmer for the hire of a labourer is valid. The Court held, 1st, that they did not think a farmer came within the Statute; 2nd, if the farmer was included, the hiring was not work done in his ordinary-i.e. daily or weekly-trade or business.]

DANGEROUS GOODS.

SIR,-Upon whom does the liability attach if, in the event of the Loading Brokers (who are also the Charterers) of a vessel shipping by her bleeching powder, liquefying salts, or corrosive preparations, without the knowledge or consent of the Owner, and without the packages being specially marked, such materials during the voyage cause injury to other portions of the cargo? The Charter-party is one of ordinary form, without any clause specially bearing upon this subject. V. J.

London, Feb. 14, 1876.

[Any person who sends, or attempts to send, or, not being the Master or Owner of the vessel, carries, or attempts to carry, in any vessel, British or foreign, any dangerous goods, such as aquafortis, vitriol, naphtha, benzine, gunpowder, lucifers, nitroglycerine, petroleum, or any other goods of a dangerous nature, without distinctly marking the same, incurs a penalty of 1004.; but if the Shipper is a mere Agent, and unaware of the fact, the penalty is not to exceed 107.-(Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, Section 23.) If goods are not marked and described, any Court having Admiralty jurisdiction may declare them forfeited-(Section 27.) A civil action might be instituted against a Charterer if he puts goods on board a ship of such a nature as to damage other cargo.]

MANNING OF SHIPS.

SIR,-I sailed from this Port to the Mediterranean in the and we signed for 12 hands. On going down the river I soon found out that I and another man were the only two A.B.'s, and we two had to work more than the rest of the men, who, however, got the same pay. Is a ship of 403 tons seaworthy with only two A.B.'s, and ought we not to be paid for overwork? H. MACDONALD.

London, June 23, 1876.

[On the 19th of December 1855, the Queen's Advocate, the Attorney-General, and Solicitor-General, advised the Board of Trade that there was an implied contract of seaworthiness between the Master of a vessel and the Crew, and that an insufficiently manned ship was unseaworthy. Further, that Seamen could not be punished under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, for refusing to go to sea in an unseaworthy ship. Whether a vessel of 403 tons, with only two A.B.'s amongst a Crew of 12 hands, would be considered. efficiently manned might depend upon certain circumstances. The extra claim for doing the work of the other men could not be claimed unless under agreement.-(The Mobile, Q.B., Feb. 15th; A.C., July 7th, 1857.) If a Crew of A.B.'s, or a given proportion, were to be engaged, and they were not shipped, this would be a breach of agreement on which to institute a claim in a County Court.]

FISHING VESSELS' MARKS.

SIR,-Has the Act which said that all fishing vessels shall have their number painted upon the bows and the mainsail