66

The Queen's Bench lately decided that when the registered Owner of a ship demised his vessel under a time charter to another person, and the person so hiring her had appointed the Master and Crew, such registered Owner was not liable for the payment of wages. (See also the Lucerne (s), “JOB v. GourLEY," Common Pleas, reported in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, May 16, 1870.) The Charterer who engaged the Master and Crew and agreed with them to pay the wages was declared to be the virtual Owner of the ship until the agreement had terminated. In consequence of this judgment the Board of Trade have instructed all Superintendents of Mercantile Marine Offices that, in the future, the name and address of the Charterer who appoints the Master and Crew shall be stated in full on the form of agree ment, and also on the Allotment Notes. This precaution seems to be very necessary and advisable, not only in the interest of Seamen, but likewise in that of Shipowners. Where there is no special stipulation in a Charter-party directed against subletting, a ship may be relet by the original Charterer to a second or third party, and hence the difficulty in ascertaining, in some cases, who may be personally liable for the debts contracted during the voyage on advances, or for the final settlement in paying off. There are, however, two kinds of Charterers, and the difference between them should not be lost sight of. In one case the entire carrying capacity of the ship is engaged for a lump sum; in another, the freight expressed is to be a certain sum for every ton, case, bale, cr cask, as the case may be, or per load, last, or measure, the Shipowner finding the Master and Crew. The Charterers, we take it, on whose account the new Board of Trade circular is issued are those who hire a ship on time, or for the voyage, on terms agreed upon, and employ their own servants in her navigation. The Owner of a ship who leases the use of her capacity for a fixed amount, but retains possession through his servants, is in the position of a person who rents the whole but occupies part only of a house, and lets either furnished or unfurnished apartments. A Charterer, however, who hires an empty ship and sils her is the Owner pro hac vice, and becomes liable, as such, for the wages of the men he engages to command and work her while his engagement lasts, and until she reverts to her rightful proprietor. In "FENTON v. The Dublin Steampacket Company" (Queen's Bench, Nov. 21, 1838), the Court held that where the Charterers were the ostensible or temporary Owners, and appointed the Master and Crew, they were liable for damages found due on account of negligent collision. A ship may be arrested on arrival in a Port of the United Kingdom, after the hiring contract has ended, in an Admiralty suit for damages, and then the solvency

WAGES.

of the Charterer would be a question of great moment for the Owner of the vessel now in possession of the Marshal of the Court. Before a ship can be released, bail must be given; and where the ex-Charterer is incapable of finding it, the bona fide Owner is compelled to do so, or allow the vessel to remain idle, besides having the costs of the Officers in charge to pay before their lien is discharged. Mistaken identity also sometimes occurs. Where a ship is arrested for the purpose of founding an action, and for damage done by collision, and the identity of the ship proceeded against cannot be proved, the Owner of her cannot recover damages for loss sustained by her detention while under arrest unless the action was so unwarrantably brought, or entered into with so little colour and so little foundation, as to imply malice on the part of the plaintiff, or that particular negligence which might be deemed equivalent to it. (The Hind v. The Evangelismos, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, July 6, 1858.) A ship may therefore be wrongly arrested, but her Owner has no remedy for the loss of her services. Attempts have been made to avoid liability for damages incurred through collision by disposing of the ship when at sea or in a foreign Port, or immediately on arrival. This would not relieve the purchaser from the liability to pay the damages and costs in the event of the Court ordering the arrest of the vessel and the action being decided against her. The ship may be followed for the damages, and likewise for the wages of the Crew if left unpaid. The mere transfer to a new purchaser does not diminish the liability of the vessel to be arrested for damage done to another ship before the sale takes place. (The Bold Buccleuch, Admiralty Court, January 18, 1850.) Dr. LUSHINGTON, in delivering judgment in the case of the Europa, May 13, 1863, after quoting the law as laid down by the Judicial Committee, to the effect that, where reasonable diligence is used and the proceedings are taken in good faith, the lien may be enforced into whosesoever possession the vessel may come, said: "I regret that this loss may fall upon "the defendants, who are innocent; but the law of "this Court is not peculiar-it is still more urgent on the Continent; the maxim is caveat emptor." In an action for freight and Demurrage originating through the refusal of a Charterer to load a ship, he having hired her for a lump sum, the agreement covenanting for the yards being aloft, and the Ship-. owner having taken down her spars for the purpose of repairs, the Lord Chief Justice told the jury that the clause relied on by the defendants was not a condition precedent, and he quoted cases in justification of his dictum.-(The Victoria, "BRIGHTMAN v. ELLIS," Common Pleas, December 1870.) This trial demonstrated that the Charterer was bound to fulfil his engagement provided the ship was properly equipped at the time of sailing. Suppose a Charterer were to repudiate his engagement after the Crew signed articles, and the Shipowner was not liable for the wages, the men would be perplexed as to whom they should summon if the Charterer's name did not appear in the transaction. Seamen have a lien on the ship if it can be got at, but while they are endeavouring to find out the person with whom they agreed to serve, the vessel may pass out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and then they must depend upon getting their wages from the Charterer,

"

WAGES.

without having any remedy against the registered Owner should the hirer be bankrupt. There are many Masters of ships who place themselves, as we have frequently pointed out, in the position of Owners in consequence of sailing vessels by the share. They find the Crew, and give the Owners as a consideration a given percentage of the earnings. The articles should be supplemented by making it compulsory on every Master who engages men on his own responsibility, or on that of a Charterer, to comply with the latest requisition of the Board of Trade.-September 4, 1878.

ADVANCE NOTE.

SIK, I hold an Advance Note of a party who shipped here in a Nova Scotia vessel, which left about four weeks ago, but was detained at the Tail of the Bank windbound. The Note did not become due till to-day. To my utter astonishment I was told by the Shipbroker, by whom the Note was made payable, that as the man's name did not appear on the Return List he could not pay me. Now, sir, I am quite confident that the man is on board, and can only account for it in this way-that the man's name was omitted by the Captain. Under these circumstances, what steps should I take to recover payment?

Glasgow, March 21, 1876.

J. P.

[If the vessel left Glasgow, and the Note was made payable so many days after sailing, the detention at the Tail of the Bank would not defeat the claim for payment. If proof can be given that the man was on board after sailing, proceedings might be taken against the parties liable for the amount.-(See Letters "Incomplete Cargo," and "Vessels put Back," Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II., pages 9 and 121.)]

ADVANCE NOTE.-SEAMAN DROWNED.

SIR, A Seaman boarded with me, and joined a ship bound for Bombay. The man was drowned, and I have received a communication from the police at Gravesend that an inquest had been held there on the body, which was recovered a few days after the ship had left. An open verdict was returned. I cashed this man's Note, for which he received full value. Can I, under the above circumstances, recover the value of the Note from the Broker or Owner ?-Yours, &c., Aug. 9, 1876. F. PHILLIPS.

[If the Note was drawn without conditions as to the Seaman being on board and earning wages so many days after sailing, the sum mentioned therein might be recovered. On the other hand, if the stipulations as to days and being then on board and earning wages were not complied with, the money advanced could not be recovered.]

ADVANCE NOTES.-SHIP LOST. SIR,-The large screw steamer Monte Moro, with a Crew of about 28 hands all told, sailed from this Port on the morning of the 4th inst., and in the short space of about six hours struck upon a sunken rock in the Bristol Channel, a little below Ilfracombe, and foundered. I cashed several of the Advance Notes of the Sailors on board this vessel, and on account of her premature loss, and within the stipulated period of three days after sailing, the Owners refuse payment of the same. Can they legally do so, as per form berewith, or otherwise; and, if not, what steps ought I to take to recover payment ?-Yours, &c., O. P. Q. Newport, Aug. 9, 1876.

[The Notes should be paid. The Note stipulates that on the order of the Master a certain firm are to pay the amount stated therein three days after sailing, provided the Seaman in whose favour the Note is drawn "proceeds in the said ship and is duly earning wages according to agreement." The only condition is that the Seaman shall have proceeded

[There is no Statute under which a Master is forbidden to advance money to his servant on account of wages, and this applies to Shipowners as to other employers. The Master of a foreign-going ship is bound to settle the wages account before a Shipping Master; and if there is nothing due to men on discharge, or only the paying-off fee of one shilling (Section 126, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854), that would be a settlement in contemplation of the law. If, however, the Master paid the men their wages on the arrival of the ship at a Port of discharge, without complying with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act (Section 170), the Seamen could claim their wages a second time.-(Par. 4, Section 175.)]

STOPPAGE OF ADVANCE NOTE.

SIR,-At Glasgow, on Nov. 8, I shipped an Able Seaman at 41. per month, and, at his request, I gave him half-a-month Advance Note. The next day, when at Androssan, this man came and told me that someone in Glasgow had got his Advance Note, and that he received nothing for it. He could not tell who had it, but declared that he had got no value for it, and that he could not go to sea without a pair of boots, as he had none. He requested me to stop the payment of the Note, and I wrote to the Owners to do so. I bought him boots and other things to the amount of 11. 4s., and on my return home I asked at the office how many advances had been paid, and the names. I found that this man's had not been paid, and therefore paid him his full wages at the Shipping-office, deducting what he had from me at Androssan, but no advance. After all were paid off, and the ship on her next voyage, the party holding the Advance Note summoned the Owners, and they were made to pay the amount of the Advance Note. The holder asserted that the Seaman got full value for the Note. The man is now doing drill on board the Naval Reserve ship at Bristol, and the Owners look to me for the amount. Are there any steps that I can take to recover this sum; and, if so, how am I to go about it? Shields, Dec. 29, 1875. SHIPMASTER.

[If the Seaman made a false representation, and the person who held the Note can prove that he gave valuable consideration for it, the man might be summoned at the County Court, and the holder subpoenaed to give evidence. Before stopping the Note the Seaman should have been made to sign a guarantee to hold the Master harmless.]

STOPPAGE OF ADVANCE NOTE.

SIR, On the 2nd of August I gave one of the Crew of my ship an Advance Note for 31. 5s. The man gave this Note to a lodging-house keeper at Gravesend, and received nothing out of the proceeds. He made an affidavit to the effect that only 13s. was due for board and other things, and protests against payment. Am I at liberty to decline payment ?Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER.

London, Aug. 6, 1876.

[The man not having received value for his Note, should give notice of its stoppage; and if proceedings are taken, an adjournment should be asked for till the arrival of the ship.]

WAGES.

WAGES.

ALLOTMENT NOTE AND MISSING SHIP. SIR, Is it right for a Shipowner to stop payment of a Seaman's allotment money because he calculates that the vessel is overdue from the St. Lawrence, and is lost with all hands, or (as the Owner himself hopes) may have put into a bye Port and got frozen up, without communication, till the spring releases her; and when should he exercise the right to cease payment?—Yours, &c., E. S. R.

London, March 3, 1877.

[Lapse of time after the ship had been last heard of would alone excuse the Shipowner from paying on the Allotment Notes. In the event of an application to the Magistrate it would be necessary to give reasonable evidence for the discontinuance of payment; and, failing to do so, an order would be made on the Owner.]

ALLOTMENT AND MISSING SHIP.

SIR, What is the limit of time within which the wife of a Seaman should obtain her half-pay from the Owners of a ship homeward-bound from Newfoundland since the middle of December last? There has been no news of her, and she is supposed to be lost.-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER. London, March 5, 1877.

[There is no exact limit to the time. Each case is settled on its own merits. A vessel from Newfoundland would be overdue if she sailed in the middle of December.]

ALLOTMENT NOTE.-INSOLVENT OWNER. SIR,-I have a son on board a vessel of this Port, now on a foreign voyage, who left half-pay with his wife, which has been paid regularly until this week, when, on application being made, I was told that the vessel had gone into other hands. The Owner has gone into Court for liquidation. How is my son's wife to proceed to get her half-pay, she having several children to provide for? A MASTER MARINER.

St. Ives, Cornwall, Jan. 15, 1876. [The Allotment Note being due for wages earned, the amount should be paid out of the assets of the insolvent in full, and in priority to all other claims. The purchaser of the ship cannot be sued under Sec. 169 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, as therein provided, for he was not the Owner or the Agent who authorised the drawing of the Note. The ship, however, although sold, can be arrested on arrival for the wages due to the Crew, and this would include the amount of the Allotment Note up to the time the Seaman was discharged.]

SAILING BY THIRDS.-CREW'S WAGES. SIR, I have a vessel which the Master sails by the share. In case he refuses to pay the Crew's wages is the Owner liable?-Yours, &c., SUBSCRIBER.

Looe, Oct. 27, 1876.

[If Master or Owners refuse to pay the wages of Seamen an order may be made by any Court; and for the purpose of compelling payment any Justice of the Peace or Stipendiary Magistrate may direct the amount remaining unpaid to be levied by distress or poinding and sale of the ship, her tackle, furniture, and apparel-(Section 523, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854). Seamen have a lien by the Law Maritime as well as by Statute on the ship for their wages.-(See the Ann, "Williams v. Oldridge," Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Oct. 16, 1876.)]

MONTHLY HIRING.

SIR,-I shipped by monthly articles a man who was to discharge cargo or ballast if required. I made the voyage, but did not require him to discharge cargo. Can he claim one month's wages?

MATHEW SAUL, Master of Eliza, brigantine, Dublin, March 1, 1876. of Dublin.

[The wages would be due for the month.]

SIR,-I was Master of a small coasting schooner, 125 tons burthen, which I sailed by half-shares, paying victuals, wages, and half Port charges, the Owner finding the ship in wear and tear and paying half Port charges. I discharged a cargo in an Irish Port, and sent the Owner his half-share of the freight. I then ballasted for a Welsh Port, and on arrival loaded a cargo of coals for another Port. Half-way on her voyage the vessel was lost. Is it legal for me to pay the whole of the Crew's wages and victuals from the time the vessel began to take in her ballast at the Irish Port, or is the Owner liable for his portion of victuals and wages as well as the half Port charges ?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER. Connah's Quay, Nov. 21, 1876.

[Seamen's right to wages and food commences from the time of their agreement or presence on board-(Section 181, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854)-and therefore they would be entitled to the same from the time the vessel began to take in her ballast at the Irish Port, as the men were on board and at work; and, under the agreement quoted, the Master would have to bear the charges. It was open to him to protect his risk by insurance.]

[The Master of every ship in the Coasting Trade above 80 tons must sign articles of agreement with every Seaman whom he carries to sea-(Section 149, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854); but agreements may be entered into extending to six months. If a man has not entered into an agreement to serve for six months, he would be at liberty to leave at the end of a voyage or run, and could not be punished as a deserter. For compensation, if wrongfully imprisoned, a seaman would have to seek redress in a County Court.]

COASTING VESSEL'S WAGES.

SIR,-I am Ship's Husband for a little schooner which was lost about a month since, and the Captain sailed her by thirds, he paying wages, victuals, and Port charges. A few days ago I received a letter from the Mate and one of the Crew, demanding two months and a half wages. In your opinion am I liable? Should not the Captain be the responsible person? As the vessel was in the Coasting Trade, ought not the Mate and Crew to have demanded their wages every month ?-Yours, &c., JUSTICE.

March 1, 1877.

[The Captain is liable to the Crew for the wages, and they should sue him in the first instance. Should the Captain be insolvent the men would still have a lien on the ship. If the Crew were on monthly wages they might have demanded their money monthly, but the failure of the Captain to pay them would not bar their claim against him or the ship.]

WAGES.

COASTING ARTICLES.

SIR,-I arrived at this Port from London, and having discharged my Crew from the Coasting Articles, I reshipped a fresh Crew, and gave them, after signing Articles, an Advance Note payable at my Broker's office two days after the vessel sailed. At the same time I allowed them, at their own request, two days, but instead of their coming on board at the end of that time, I have been two days more seeking for fresh hands. I have applied for redress, but cannot get any. What are the best means for a Master with his Coasting Articles to do ?-Yours, &c., W. T. GRIFFITHS, Master of the brig Ringleader, of Whitstable. Sunderland, April 24, 1877.

[Coasting Articles may be signed before a Shipping Master, but they are usually completed on board the vessel, if practicable, at the time of sailing, or, if not, after getting to sea. (See Section 145, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) Time agreements may be entered upon under the Acts of 1854 and 1872.-(See page 90, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. 1.)-If men sign articles and absent themselves without leave, or neglect to join their ship, they may be proceeded against under Section 243 of the Act of 1854. We are of opinion that the holders of the Notes could not recover under the circumstances, but in issuing such orders care should be taken to insert the words " if the Seaman to whom this is payable is then serving on board."]

RUN IN COASTING TRADE.

SIR,-I agreed with the Owner of a schooner to go by the run from here to Plymouth and back at 41. 10s. Instead of coming back to Aberdovey the vessel went with limestones to Charlestown, Cornwall, and from there to Runcorn with a cargo of clay. What extra pay would be fair for the voyage? I had to pay my expenses from Runcorn home.-Yours, &c., Aberdovey, Aug. 12, 1876. A SUBSCRIBER.

[Our Correspondent would be entitled to wages for another half run, and his passage money from Runcorn to Aberdovey.]

WAGES BY THE RUN AND DEMURRAGE. SIR,-If a Master and Mate sail in a ship by the voyage in the Coasting Trade, does their voyage terminate as soon as the ship comes on Demurrage at a discharging Port, and can they claim anything while the ship is on Demurrage ? Jan. 29, 1876. A SHIPOWNER.

[The voyage would not end until the cargo was discharged, unless the Master and Mate were engaged to take a vessel to & Port without reference to a voyage or the custom of a trade. We are of opinion that, although a Crew are not entitled to leave a vessel at anchor in the river, they should be paid an additional sum when the Shipowner is compensated by Demurrage.—(See letter in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette headed "Wages by Detention or Demurrage," Feb. 22, 1875.)]

WAGES FOR TIME OR VOYAGE.

SIR, A vessel belonging to me put into this Port leaky a few days ago; she is bound to St. Malo, the Crew being shipped by the voyage. After she arrived in Port I took labourers to discharge the cargo, and wanted the Crew to attend the pumps. She made about one inch an hour, and four hours' pumping in 24 would keep her free. The men refused to pump, and I therefore ordered the Captain to stop their food. They then summoned the Captain for their keep, and the Magistrates decided to-day in their favour, and according to the men's statement advised them to summon the Captain for wages for the whole voyage. Am I bound to keep men who refuse to work, and have the Magistrates a right to induce the men to put in an excessive claim against me? The position of a Shipowner in these hard times is surely unpleasant enough, especially when his vessel gets into trouble, and should not be made more so without necessity. A SHIPOWNER.

Dover, Jan. 29, 1876.

WAGES.

[If a Seaman is detained on a charge of desertion or any kindred offence, and the vessel is surveyed under Section 7 of the Act of 1871, and it is proved that she is not in a fit condition to proceed to sea, or that her accommodation is insufficient, the Owner or the Master is liable to pay to such Seaman any compensation for his detention as the Court may award.-(Section 9, Merchant Shipping Act, 1873.) In every contract of service, express or implied, the Owner or Master is bound to keep a ship in a seaworthy condition.(Section 9, Act of 1875.) We are of opinion that if a ship, from some unexplained cause, leaks, and the Master puts into a Port to discharge the cargo, repairs the vessel and makes her seaworthy, the Crew are not absolved from their engagement, nor is the Owner. If, however, the voyage is abandoned, and the Crew have not been charged with desertion or a kindred offence, and the men are willing to resume the voyage but are not required, they could claim for the voyage, as the wages were to be paid by the run in a lump sum, and Section 167 of the Act of 1854 merely refers to monthly hiring.]

WAGES CLAIM OVER SHIPWRIGHT'S LIEN.

SIR,-In July last a vessel of which I was Master and Part-Owner fell under the ban of the Board of Trade, and in consequence an attempt was made to sell the ship, but, u..der the circumstances, no buyers were in the market. At last my copartner agreed to comply with the orders of the Board of Trade Surveyor, and the ship was placed upon a slipway in the Tyne for that purpose, and the repairs were proceeded with; but, when completed, my partner was not disposed to pay his proportion of the dock bill, and the Builder arrested the ship by Admiralty process to secure himself, and the vessel may possibly be sold by order of the Court. Will my wages and the wages of the part of the Crew who have been employed on board take priority of all other claims, and what is best to be done to secure payment ? JONATHAN BENNETT, Master of the Polymede. Wivenhoe, Jan. 20, 1876.

[Wages earned by the Crew previous to repairs, but not from the time the vessel was in the Shipwright's hands, have a prior lien over that of the Shipwright-(the Gustaf, Admiralty Court, May 27, 1862); but if the Owners are not bankrupt, a summons should be taken out against them for the wages due-(the Linda Flor, A. C., Dec. 24, 1857); and if the vessel is sold by order of the Court of Admiralty, the Court will protect the rights of Seamen-(the Harmonie, A. C., Feb. 9, 1841).]

FIRST AND LAST DAYS' WAGES. SIR,-Can a Seaman who is engaged to join, and joins, his vessel at a late hour of the day or evening, or who is discharged at an early hour of the morning, claim a full day's

wage for each of these days? and, if so, on what ground, or by what law? Ought it not, at most, to be computed at half or quarter day's wages?-Yours, &c., DISPUTE. March 13, 1877.

[In Her Majesty's Service and in the Mercantile Marine the day of 24 hours is computed from midnight to midnight. The first and the last day of employment always count. Α man who goes on board a ship on the afternoon or evening of one day, and is discharged the following, must have served parts of two days. When a man is engaged by the day, or week, or month, hours are not counted, and parts of days are regarded as whole days.]

SHIPPING MASTERS AND WAGES. SIR,-I engaged a man to serve on board my ship as A.B. at 31. 2s. 6d. per month, on a voyage to the Mediterranean. Finding the man imcompetent to do an A.B.'s work I reduced his wages to 27. per month, and made an entry of it in the official log, which was signed by myself and Mate and read over to him. On arrival here the Shipping Master orders me to pay in full, and tells me no Court in England would allow the deduction, because the Sailor had previously Imade a short coasting voyage with me. His wages were reduced at the time of incompetency, and not for the whole period he served on board.-Yours, &c., Goole, June 8, 1877. SHIPMASTER.

[Under Section 173 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, a Shipping Master may hear and decide any question between a Master or Owner and any of the Crew which both parties agree in writing to submit to him. If, therefore, the question has not been so referred, the decision of the Shipping Master has no effect, and the Magistrate must determine whether the disrating was justified.]

FOREIGN SEAMAN'S WAGES. SIR,-In answer to my letter in to-day's Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, on " Foreign Seaman's Wages," I have been told by the Consul's Solicitor that the claim for

damages has got to be paid first. Is this the case, the Owners being bankrupt?-Yours, &c.,

M.`T. KELLY, Master Brig Mechanic.

Cardiff, June 9, 1877.

[Seamen's wages are paid, as a rule, in priority to damages resulting from collision; and this would be so under the Law Maritime as well as under our Muncipal Law.]

PAYMENT ON DISCHARGE.

SIR,-When should Sailors in the Coasting Trade, according to law, be paid their wages after being discharged? On the 24th Dec. I wired my Captain to discharge his Crew, and the next day was Christmas Day, the following a Sunday, and the next a Bank Holiday. The Magistrates made me pay them for these three days, which I consider was illegal. Dundalk, Jan. 24, 1876. A SHIPOWNER.

[The Master or Owner of every ship shall pay to every Seaman his wages, in the case of a Home Trade ship, within two days after the termination of the agreement, or at the time such Seaman is discharged, whichever first happens; and in all cases the Seaman shall, at the time of his discharge, be entitled to be paid on account a sum equal to one-fourth part of the balance due to him. And every Master or Owner who neglects or refuses to make payment in the manner aforesaid, without sufficient cause, shall pay to the Seaman a sum not exceeding the amount of two days' pay for each of the days, not exceeding 10 days, during which payment is delayed.-(Section 187, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) The Master, therefore, should have given the men, on discharge, one-fourth of the wages due to them, and failing to do so, the decision of the Magistrates would be in accordance with the Statute.]

DISCHARGE AND WAGES.

SIR, First, having received a number of Discharge Notes (Home Trade), previously signed by the Captain, to fill in myself, being First Engineer, from the articles to discharge my Firemen, would filling up one for myself (witnessed at the time by the Chief Officer) be a legal discharge, I having filled the said discharge up several weeks before leaving the ship? Second, can I sue for wages from the time of leaving the ship through illness up to the present time, having received no further discharge? A SUBSCRIBER.

April 26, 1876.

[1st. The attested signature of the Master, if properly obtained, and to the form authorised to be issued, would be held to constitute a legal discharge. 2nd. If a Seaman leaves his vessel from inability to proceed, his wages would be due up to the period of leaving the service.]

WAGES ACCOUNT OF DECEASED.

SIR,-A ship left London for Australia in June 1874, and sailed for London in April 1875, and has not since been heard of. I had a nephew, who was Third Mate in her, and have received his account of wages [copy enclosed], a considerable portion being deducted for tobacco supplied and cash advanced; and knowing he never smoked previous to this, his last voyage, and having money with him, are the Agents justified in making such deductions, the Captain's account having been lost with the ship? I ask the question upon principle.-Yours, &c., SHIPMASTER. London, Dec 15, 1876.

[The wages having been paid over to the Shipping Master, documents might have been asked for in corroboration of the wages account.-(Section 174, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) This not having been done, the parties to whom the letters of administration were granted might sue the Owner for the whole amount of the wages due, and then proof would have to be adduced of cash and tobacco having been given to the