CHARTER-PARTIES.

there under the authority of the Charterer, the Master would be bound to take his vessel there. There is said to be 13 feet of water at Ballyshannon at springs, and 9 feet at neap tides. If the ship on arrival, or at spring tides, could not enter the Port, the Lay-days would run on from the time she was as near to the Port as she could safely get.-(See pages 81 and 82, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.) All detention from not providing lighters would fall on the Charterer or Bill of Lading holder, according to the terms of the contract.]

NEW ROSS AS A SAFE PORT.

SIR,-Do you consider New Ross, 12 miles from Waterford, described by the people there as dangerous to reach, and only accessible at spring tides for large steamers, a "safe Port" for a Merchant to order our grain-laden steamer to ?-Yours, &c., SHIPOWNERS.

Hull, April 23, 1877.

[It is a question as to the size of the ship and her draught of water. The depth of water at New Ross at springs is 24 feet, and at neaps 18 feet. There is a quay 600 feet in length, alongside which ships of 600 tons can discharge.]

LLANELLY.-SAFE PORT UNDER CHARTER. SIR,-Is Llanelly considered as a safe Port for steamers of, say, 14 feet draught, from 400 to 500 tons burthen, as Owners of such steamers refuse to send them there, although they are under time Charter for any Port (considered as a safe one) in the United Kingdom where they can load afloat? Swansea, April 25, 1876. A CONSTANT READER. [The depth of water at Llanelly at springs is said to be 23 feet, and at neaps 154 feet. Llanelly would therefore be a good and safe Port for a vessel drawing 14 feet. The floating dock accommodates ships drawing 17 feet.]

UNSAFE PORT.

SIR,-1. Is a sailing vessel, which is chartered for a safe Port in the United Kingdom, bound to go to a Port which she cannot possibly reach with her own gear and tackle? 2. Providing a sailing vessel cannot get to a Port with her own gear and tackle, and can get there with the aid of a steamtug, but the navigation is such that, in case the tug becomes disabled, the vessel is certain to suffer damage, or probably be totally lost, is she bound to go to such a Port? Hull, Jan. 29, 1876. INQUIRER.

[1. If a vessel requires the assistance of a tug to enter a Port, that would not absolve the Master from performing the agreement to go there. 2. Ports in the United Kingdom are sufficiently well known and described in books and charts to enable a Shipowner to judge of their comparative safety; and if a contract is entered into under which a vessel is to be taken to a Port where there is sufficient water for her to lie afloat, the mere probability of risk being incurred under tow would not be a sufficient justification to violate a Charterparty.]

SAFE BERTH.

SIR,-A vessel is towed from Cork to Ballinacurra, and, after berthing at a safe quay, the Captain finds that it is not the one the Merchant requires her to discharge at; whereupon, hearing the new berth was rather unsafe for a vessel of her length, he went to the Harbour Master and told him to take the responsibility of removing her. The Harbour Master appeared to have some doubts about the berth too, and would not decide upon removing her until she had been there three days. The Captain sends in his bill to the Merchant for three days' Demurrage, and he refuses to pay it. Who is liable for it? SHIPBROKER.

Cork, April 17, 1876.

[If the vessel could have gone alongside the berth with safety, the Merchant would not be liable for the three days' delay.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

UNSAFE WHARF.

SIR,-My ship was chartered from Hartlepool for London to proceed to a safe wharf. Having sold to a Merchant whose wharf (which I can prove) is not a good one, can the Merchant compel me to go there? A SHIPMASTER. London, Feb. 11, 1876.

[A wharf is a good wharf if a vessel gets alongside and can remain there while discharging the cargo without injury.]

SPRING TIDE AND NO CARGO.

SIR, My vessel was chartered while on a voyage from Ardrossan to Runcorn. I arrived here on 12th inst., and finished discharging on 15th, and gave the Shipper notice that the vessel was ready for loading. He told me that my vessel should be loaded on or before the 20th, as there would not be water to sail before the 22nd. On the 18th I got notice that the Merchant had cancelled his order. My Laydays being up to-day, and the spring tides near at hand (as we can only get down with high tides), am I justified in accepting another Charter, and to what extent (if any) is the Merchant liable according to terms of Charter, I not knowing whether my second Charter will be better or worse than the first? YOUNG SHIPMASTER.

Runcorn, May 20, 1876.

[The vessel, according to the Charter-party submitted to us for perusal, was to proceed to Runcorn to be loaded, "and to come down present springs if ready in time;" and the penalty for the non-performance of the contract was to be the estimated amount of freight. If the Charterer declines to load the vessel so as to enable her to get away on the top of the spring tides, he would be liable for all losses sustained by the delay of the ship, and also for any loss incurred on re-charter. The law is fully explained in Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.]

NEAPED.-CARGO NOT READY.

SIR,-My vessel was chartered to proceed to this port to load salt, with the understanding that the cargo was ready for shipment, and that if I arrived here in time the vessel should be loaded to save the tides. I was detained longer than I expected at the adjoining Port, still I got here in time to get my cargo on board, and to have saved the water away; but, on my arrival, there was no salt down ready, consequently I did not get laden in time. I have been detained eight days, not waiting for cargo, but for water. Can I claim Demurrage for the detention? If so, what am I entitled to?-Yours, &c., SHIPMASTER.

Weston Point, Feb. 10, 1877.

[By the Charter-party sent to us for inspection, the vessel was to be loaded "to save the springs if ready in time." If the vessel was ready to load, and in time to save the high tides to get out, and the Charterer did not fulfil his contract, our Correspondent would have a claim, as provided for in the agreement, of 60s. per day as Demurrage.]

DANUBE BAR.

SIR,-Lately the stated depth of water in the Danube has been very mysterious. On the 16th inst., at Galatz, the depth of water was posted as being over Gorgova Bar (which is generally supposed to be the most shoalful bar in the Danube), as 17 feet; but a second bar, named Kolotgnas, was notified as having only 16 feet. Those reports had been posted up in the Commissioners' office for five days as a guide for Pilots and Masters to go by; and on going there to state the draught when I intended going down, I was told by the Pilot Master that unless I lightened my vessel to 15 feet to pass safely over Kolotgnas Bar, I should have to hear the responsibility of all accidents that occurred in the passage down. I refused to lighten, as I strongly suspected that the statement was not correct, and came down to Tultcha on the 17th inst. There I found the draught of water had been posted for two days for Gorgova at 173 feet, and that Kolot

CHARTER-PARTIES.

gnas had had sufficient water over it for some time, and they now considered it unnecessary to post the depth of water over it at all. I was further told here by the Commissioners' Agent that if there was 16 feet posted as existing at Galatz, it was a false statement. On arrival at Gorgova I found 18 feet posted. Had I lightened to 15, as requested to do by the officials at Galatz, and at the same time there had been sufficient water to pass safely over without any lighterage, could I have come upon the Commissioners for the cost of lightering, or would that have been a dead loss to the ship, after paying about 2s. 6d. per register ton for Danube Commission Dues? Surely the depth of water should be correctly stated in the Pilots' offices without being compelled to pay a heavy lighterage without the least necessity. The depth of water is telegraphed from Sulina to Tultcha, from Tultcha to Galatz, from there to Ibrail, and so on; but whether the correct depth varies during its communication along the wire, or the evil is done wilfully, or through neglect, is a mystery that wants solving.-Yours, &c., Constantinople, Dec. 22, 1876.

SHIPMASTER.

[If our correspondent had suffered any loss through the incorrect statements put forward by the servants of the Danube Commissioners, he might have represented the case to them, and, failing to obtain redress, to the Court at Constantinople.]

SPRING TIDE.

The ship

SIR,-My vessel was chartered at Baltimore, through a Shipbroker," to load a cargo of grain to the United Kingdom for orders, the orders to be given in 48 hours; further delay to count as Lay-days, or orders to be given on signing Bills of Lading at 3d. less freight to a safe Port, or so near thereunto as she can always float with safety." On signing I got orders for Drogheda. Fearing that on my arrival there would not find sufficient water to float, I protested and sailed. Coming up the Irish Channel, I was informed by the Master of a tugboat, whose assistance I took, that I could not cross the bar with that high water. therefore entered Kingstown, and I went personally to Drogheda, where I was informed by the Harbour Master and my Pilot that I could only come in on a spring tide. There was only one berth for a ship like mine, and the dredger was then working to make sufficient water for my ship to be always afloat. I gave the Merchant notice, on my arrival at Kingstown, of being ready to deliver cargo. Am I compelled to await spring tide, and the dredger making a berth for my vessel, or are my Lay-days to count from my arrival at Kingstown? I came in here with the new moon tide, and commenced same day to discharge, or else would not have be-n afloat, as the bottom is very uneven.

[The Charter-party submitted to us for inspection stipu lated that the vessel was to proceed from Baltimore to Queenstown for orders, and thence to a safe Port in the United Kingdom or the Continent-" or so near thereunto as she can always float with safety." If there is no permanent obstruction to a Port, and a vessel can enter at spring tide, the Lay-days would commence from that time. If, however, the vessel could not be lightened to be afloat after entering, the time spent in dredging a berth would count in the Lay-days.-(See the Alonzo, Appeal in Chancery, Dublin, reported in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, June 16, 1876.)]

WAITING TURN AT GRANGEMOUTH.

SIR, I have lately seen replies to letters in your columns respecting Grangemouth and Bo'ness, in relation to ships with Charters containing the stipulation-" so nearly thereto as she can safely get,' and no turn clause, yet ships are detained, not for water, but because the docks are full, and when their turn does come, by the Dockmaster's statement, they cannot get into dock for want of water. You have, I believe, invariably replied that such loss by detention is at the Merchant's risk. Can you refer me to any case that has been tried similar to those quoted, as I am informed that some time ago such a case was tried in Scotland, and decided

[In the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of June 13, 1876, will be found the case of the Nellie (8)-"Moon v. The Caledonian Railway Company," Court of Session, Edinburgh, which related to a steamship waiting turn at Grangemouth. The steamer was chartered to load a cargo of coal, and arrived at the dock gates on the 17th of October, but was not admitted till the 28th. The Owner of the ship sued the railway company, to whom the dock belonge, for 251. per day for those 11 days. It appeared that for some time prior to October 1874, under the then existing byelaws of the harbour, steamers were allowed a preference over sailing vessels at the cranes, and that on the 12th of said month, in consequence of the harbour becoming blocked, the railway company discontinued tht preference except to steamers trading regularly to and from Grangemouth. The pursuers averred that it was the rule and custom of the harbour to give priority to steam-vessels, and that the defenders, in the case of the pursuers' vessel, not only violated that rule and custom, but their duty at Common Law, and, under the Statutes affecting the harbour, dealing equally and fairly with vessels. The pursuers therefore founded their claim upon the ground that their vessel was not admitted to the docks on arrival, and that by the change in the usage of the harbour, of which no sufficient notice was given, their vessel was detained longer than it otherwise would have been. There were 18 vessels on the "Turn-book" when the Nellie (s) arrived, one of which was a regular steam trader, which could not get under the crane before the 28th. The Court found that the Harbour Master was entitled to regulate the traffic of the harbour, and had done so for the benefit of the trade of the Port, and that the loss and damage for which reparation was sought was not loss and damage resulting from fault on the part of the defenders. This action, it will be seen, was against the Dock and Harbour Company for not giving preference to a steamer. The detention arose from the vessel having to wait her turn. The Dockmaster would not allow her to enter and block up the basin until there was a chance of loading her. The Court decided that the Harbour Authorities had a perfect right to regulate the traffic under their bye-laws, and to assign berths for ships. If the vessel had been chartered to load out of turn the Shipowner would have had his remedy against the Charterer. In "Cafferini v. Walker," where a ship arrived off a dock but drew too much water to enter, the jury awarded Demurrage for three days lost in lightening the ship. It was contended that the vessel was not at her discharging berth before she was in the dock; and, in consequence of the increased size of ships using the Port, it was not right to make the Layday's run on while the vessel was outside the harbour. The Court, however, on appeal, after hearing the arguments of counsel, confirmed the verdict arrived at by the jury.-(The Leo Batta Dasta, Queen's Bench, Dublin, June 28, 1876.) This agrees with the cases reported at pages 81, 82, and 83, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II., and page 15, Vol, III. It is a question, however, which must in all cases be determined by the conditions of the Charter-party. If the custom of a Port as to loading in turn is not agreed upon, detention arising from a crowded dock must fall upon the Charterer. The Queen's Bench Division, on March 6, 1876, in "Thiis v. Byers," held that in naming Lay-days a Charterer accepts the risks of all casualties unless he protects himself by special conditions in the memorandum of agreement.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

ICE CLAUSE.

SIR,-My vessel is just loaded with herrings in a Port of the Moray Firth, bound for a Baltic Port on the ordinary terms of Charter-party and Bills of Lading (no ice clause). As the Port is now ice bound, I intend letting the vessel lay for some time. Am I justified in doing so if the ves el is at the discharging Port immediately on the opening of the Port? SHIPOWNER.

Jan. 18, 1876.

[The Shipowner would not be justified in detaining the vessel at the loading Port. If the Charterer refuses permission to remain, the Master would be bound to proceed, and the Lay-days would commence from the time the vessel got as near to the Port of discharge as she could safely reach. In the event of danger, the cargo might be discharged at the nearest open Port.-(See page 170, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.]

ICE CLAUSE.-DEMURRAGE.

SIR,-A vessel fixed to load at Sulina arrived there on the 11th of December last, and, after delivering her ballast, was ready to receive cargo on the 14th. Notice was given to the Merchant, who, however, submits that, owing to the Danube being frozen, he has been unable to give the ship any cargo. Can I claim Demurrage after the expiration of the Layingdays, notwithstanding the Charter has a clause, " Detention by ice not to count as Lay-days"? Sulina not having been frozen and now still free of ice, is the Merchant bound to abide by his original Charter? AGENT.

North Shields, Jan. 26, 1876.

[The vessel was chartered to load at the port of Sulina, and the Merchant cannot load the ship because the cargo cannot be brought down the Danube. The question raised is a very important one, for the Charterer protected himself against detention of the ship by the "Ice Clause." We are of opinion, however, that the clause refers to the place of loading, and not to the inland navigation. If this interpretation of the clause is correct the Lay-days would run on from the time the vessel entered Sulina.]

ICE, AND DETENTION OF STEAMER. SIR,-I had a vessel arrived at Konigsberg on Nov. 2, and got into a discharging berth on the 4th. On that day the Captain chartered his vessel to proceed to a loading berth after lichaging her inward cargo, and there load a cargo of grain or seed for certain Ports, orders on signing Bills of Lading. Instead of so many days being allowed to load and discharge, it was stipulated that the vessel should be loaded without detention, and five working days allowed for discharge. The inward cargo was dicharged on the 6th and 7th. On Wednesday, the 8th, the hold was cleared and prepared for an outward cargo, and the Captain gave notice on the 9th that he was ready, being then in a loading berth, but the Merchants could not get labour that day. During night a heavy frost set in and stopped the navigation; no vessels could get out. On the 11th it became fresh, and the ice broke up, and 11 vessels that had completed loading went down to Pillau that day. On Sunday the 12th, the Merchants loaded the Cargo, and the Captain signed Bills of Lading, and was towed that evening five miles down, but next morning the ice was so thick that he could not proceed, and he is still there. Have I a claim on the Merchants for detention at the rate stipulated for Demurrage, as, had they loaded on Thursday or Friday, as they might have done, the vessel could have got to sea on Saturday, as 11 others did; or in what other way can I get redress? The rule there is that Pilots are not allowed to take vessels down after dark; thus the reason for remaining five miles down overnight. The steamer got through with difficulty next day.Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER.

Dec. 19, 1876.

[The vessel was to be loaded "without detention," and when she was ready the Merchants were not prepared to

CHARTER-PARTIES.

fulfil their contract. If, therefore, by the breach of agreement the Merchants caused the vessel to be unreasonably detained, they might be made liable for the detention. Had the ship been laden "without detention," and then frozen up, the detention would have fallen on the Shipowner.]

ICE CLAUSE.

SIR,-Referring to the answers in Vol. I. of Maritime Notes and Queries, at pages 118 and 170, to questions concerning Ports subject to being frozen up, I have a vessel expected at a Port of call under a Charter similar to the one described at page 170, and as the answer there is at variance with that given at page 118, I would like to have your opinion as to whether I should be obliged to send my vessel, say to Hamburg, if ordered there, if that Pert was frozen up; and, in such a case, should I be obliged to keep my vessel until the navigation opened, or could I proceed to the nearest safe Port, and there oblige the Consignee to receive the cargo?Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER.

Ardrossan, Dec. 11, 1876.

[If a Shipowner enters into an agreement to take his ship as near to a Port as she can safely get, and there is no permanent obstruction to prevent the vessel from entering the Port, the Master would have to wait till he could enter, whether the temporary impediment proceeds from having to remain for the rise of the spring tides or the breaking up of the ice. A vessel may safely enter a Port at a certain time by waiting, and the question is, as to when Lay-days should run. This is a matter of special agreement, and must be decided by the terms of the contract. With reference to Hamburg, we are of opinion that when a vessel went up the Elbe and got into a safe place where she might be discharged, the Lay-days should commence, but not when the ship was in the North Sea, or where the hirer could not have her at his command. In the case of the Young Scalesby("Smith v. Beal," Court of Queen's Bench)-it was pleaded that, in consequence of the frost, potatoes could not be had to make up the cargo, and that the Charterer was absolved from the inclemency of the weather. Mr. Justice Lush held that if the defendants wished to provide against any unforeseen accident they should have stipulated for it in the contract. When a Charterer names days for unloading he takes upon himself all risks of casualties in the weather, and all delay falls upon him from such causes("Thus v. Byers," Queen's Bench Division, on appeal, March 6, 1876). From a consideration of the decisions it would appear that much depends upon the stipulations in Charters and the meaning of the words "permanent obstruction."]

GRAIN CARGOES AND ELEVATORS.

SIR, Last season I loaded a cargo of grain at Montreal. The Merchant selected the elevator I used for loading; but the charge was about double what I could have had the grain loaded for. I did not want to have any dispute, and paid the account without saying anything about it. If the Merchant again insists on selecting an elevator which charges a higher rate than I can get the work done for, can I recover the excess?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER.

Liverpool, April 24, 1877.

[If there is an agreement that the Shipper of the grain shall employ the elevator, and charge the expenses to the Shipowner, there would be no redress at law. On the other hand, if there was no contract under which the option was so given, the Master would be at liberty to engage any elevator he pleased. It is a question of contract.-(See letter in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, April 6, 1877.)]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

GRAIN CARGOES AND ELEVATORS. SIR, On the 6th inst. you published a letter from a "Shipowner," who gave his experience of the grain elevator combination at Montreal. Recent advices from Canada say that the Government was likely to inquire into the doings of this conbination, and probably the unfair regulations mentioned by your Correspondent will be abolished; but, taking the Harbour Rule at Montreal as it exists, can a Shipowner, obliged by votes to employ a combination grain elevator, be compelled legally to pay more for loading than the price which would be charged by other elevator owners equally competent to do the work?-Yours, &c.,

Liverpool, April 18, 1877. ANOTHER SHIPOWNER.

[If there is no condition that a particular elevator shall be employed at the Shipowner's expense, the Master would be at liberty to engage the services of any elevator he pleased; but if there is a stipulation that the grain is to be laden with a particular machine, the charge ought not to be more than that made by others in the Port.]

DOCK DISCHARGING RATES.

SIR,-A short time since one of our vessels brought a cargo of sleepers and grain from the Baltic to the Victoria (London) Docks, where by Charter she had to discharge. The Merchants, whose wharf is in the docks, discharged the sleepers without any agreement being made as to what they should charge for labour, not expecting that it would vary very much from the charge in the river; but we find that they charge as much as 58 per cent. more than the current rate for similar work done in the river, and the Merchants insist upon being paid at this excessive rate. Are we legally bound to pay the receiver more than the current rate in the river, no agreement having been made? The account was not rendered to us by the Dock Company, but by the receiver, who appears to have the privilege from the Dock Company of employing his own men and charging at the same tariff as the docks. If we are bound to the price in this instance because we made no agreement, are ships going into the Victoria Docks bound to employ the Dock Company's men to discharge ? We may add that the tariff charged, although in excess of river rates, is the same as in the docks. London, Sept. 17, 1877. SUBSCRIBERS.

[If the ship was to be discharged at the expense of the Owner, and he gave authority to the receiver of the cargo to employ his (the Merchant's) men, the Dock rates would govern the case.- -(See letters, "Cost of Discharging," page 2, and "West India Docks," page 195, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

GROUNDING, DOCKING, AND CARTAGE. SIR, On the 15th August I chartered my vessel at Goole to load a cargo of coal, the Charter stating-"and being so loaded shall therewith proceed to Great Western Docks, Plymouth, and there deliver the same to the Freighters or their assigns, according to the custom of the Port." The Charter also states that 14 keel per working day be allowed the Merchant for the delivery of the cargo, and Demurrage over and above said time at 37. 10s. per day; and there is a clause in the Charter stating that the liability of the Freighters ceases as soon as the cargo is shipped (their Principals are not disclosed in the Charter), and no mention is made of the ship having a lien on the cargo for freight and demurrage. The Charter states "the freight to be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo in cash." On Aug. 25 I signed Bills of Lading for the cargo, in which was inserted the name of the Consignee here, with "freight and other conditions as per Charter-party." I arrived here on Sept. 7, and entered the Great Western Dock. I called on the Consignee, who stated that his coal store was at Millbay Wharf, and requested me to go there to discharge. Millbay Wharf is a dry harbour, but the Merchant represented the berth as good, and, wishing to avoid trouble, I hauled my vessel there and commenced discharging on the 8th inst., part going into his store and part on railway waggons; but when the vessel grounded she strained badly, and commenced to make water (she was

CHARTER-PARTIES.

quite tight before), so I protested, serving the Consignee with a copy, and moved my vessel into the Great Western Dock again, where the Dockmaster put her into a discharging berth on the morning of the 10th inst., and where such cargoes are regularly discharged, the railway waggons going alongside. The Consignee refuses, however, to take delivery of the cargo unless I pay for cartage to his store, asserting that the dry harbour berth at Millbay Wharf is part of the Great Western Docks. My Lay-days will expire on 20th inst., and Consignee still refuses to take delivery of the coal. How should I act? If I am to store the cargo, what will be a reasonable time to keep the ship on Demurrage before commencing to store? Have I a lien for freight and Demurrage? My vessel is 191 tons register, and the cargo by Bill of Lading was 339 tons, of which about 30 tons have been discharged. A SHIPMASTER.

Plymouth, Sept. 17, 1877.

[Millbay Wharf is not a dock, and the Master was not bound to go there if his ship would be endangered. For all detention the Bill of Lading holder would be liable, he having accepted the goods and made himself liable for the conditions of the Charter-party. As no lien is given by contract for Demurrage, the cargo could not be held for the same; but if the Consignee refuses to take delivery of the cargo, the coals should be landed immediately and held for freight and charges. The Shipowner is not liable for cartage.-(See the Volga (s), "Holman v. Wade," Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, May 19, 1877.)]

DOCKED, BUT NOT BERTHED.

SIR, One of our vessels was chartered from Bilbao with iron ore to the Alexandra Dock, Newport, on terms of the enclosed Charter, which stipulates that the cargo is to be delivered" as customary, where, and as directed by the Consignees or their agents;" and another clause in the Charter says "the Lay-days not to commence before the ship is in berth and in every respect ready to load or discharge respectively." The steamer was ordered by Consignees to a berth in the Alexandra Dock; but, a number of vessels being there, our boat was not able to reach the berth until a week or more had elapsed. We have claimed Demurrage, but this is refused by the Charterers. Are we entitled to Demurrage? There is no customary turn at Newport in a general way, but a sort of custom may have been made by this particular Consignee for the discharge of vessels under like circumstances. London, Sept. 5, 1877. SUBSCRIBERS.

[The vessel, according to the Charter submitted to us for inspection, was chartered to proceed to "one of the undermentioned Ports-namely, Newport or Cardiff-and deliver as customary, the Lay-days not to commence before the ship is in her berth and in every respect ready to discharge." It is usual in Charters to insert the words "or as near thereto as she can safely get." The ship entered the dock, but in consequence of its crowded state could not be berthed. The question is, who should bear the loss through a vessel being ordered to a place where she could not be berthed? The Charter is explicit as to the Lay-days not commencing until the ship is berthed; but the customary mode of delivery would not entitle the Charterer, in the absence of express stipulation, to keep the ship in the dock and not berthed. The crowded state of a dock and detention caused thereby give a claim for compensation.-(See "Randall v. Lynch," "Leer v. Yates," " Brown v. Johnston," "Struck v. Tennant," "Thiss v. Byers," Queen's Bench, on appeal, Feb. 16, and March 6, 1876; and pages 81 and 82, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.) In the case of the "Steamship Company of Norden v. Dempsey," Liverpool Assizes-(See Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Dec. 28, 1876)-it was sought to prove that by the custom of Merchants in Liverpool, the Laydays did not begin to run when a vessel was docked, but only when the Consignee was enabled to find her a discharging berth. The Special Jury, however, found that no such

CHARTER-PARTIES.

custom prevailed, and gave a verdict for the Shipowner. In our opinion the clause in the Charter-party should be construed as implying that a berth would be found for the vessel on her arrival in the dock. Delay in reaching a disengaged berth on the part of the Master, and any delay in getting the ship ready when there, should fall on the Shipowner.]

GUARANTEED CAPACITY.

SIR,-A vessel was chartered from Liverpool to a Port in South America, out and home. The Charter runs thus:"That the said ship being tight, staunch, and strong, and everyway fitted for the voyage, shall load here on the berth as it is customary for a general ship, and receive on board all such lawful goods as the said Charterers shall send alongside, it being understood that they are to have the full reach of the hold of the ship, including the half deck, if any. The Owner or Master guaranteeing that the vessel can carry 450 tons gross weight of cargo and be in seaworthy trim, &c., &c." This vessel went to the Charterers' berth and loaded with dead weight and measurement-say 520 tonsand for which weight the Charterers charged me for Stevedoring. Can I demand the full freight for the whole 520 tons out and home? or is it expected that the Charterers are to pay only on the 450 tons that the vessel was guaranteed to carry? Surely I can claim for the weight and measurement for which I have paid them stowage. Is not this so? -Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER.

Feb. 9, 1877.

[There was a guarantee that the vessel could carry 450 tons. This was an implied contract that she should take not less than 450 tons, but there was no stipulation forbidding the Charterers to load a greater quantity, they having the right to "the full reach of the hold of the ship." The ship, however, must not be made unseaworthy.]

DEADWEIGHT CAPACITY.

SIR,-I chartered one of my vessels for a lump sum to load general cargo. In the Merchant's form of Charter a clause stood blank, requiring the Owner in chartering to state the deadweight-carrying capacity of the ship he offered. I at once told the Merchant, in the presence of my Broker, who accompanied me to his office, that my vessel carried 600 tons of coal or rather more. The freight was then arranged, and the deadweight-carrying capacity of the ship filled in as 600 tons. In order to prevent any dispute or unpleasantness, and before the ship was loaded, I procured certificates from parties who had previously chartered the vessel that she had taken a little over 600 tons coals. The vessel was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo of very heavy and very light goods, but what the real weight was it is impossible to say. The Captain, from the draught of water and his previous experience of the ship, was certain she had at least 600 tons weight on board. I produced evidence in support of this, although denying I was liable under the Charter for the 600 tons guaranteed, as the ship had loaded general cargo. The Merchants disputed my evidence, and deducted 807. from the advance for alleged short weight. On my threatening proceedings, they paid in full; and after a long dispute with them, they agreed to reduce their claim to 404., and to refer the matter to an arbitrator. His decision has just been given, and appears to me contrary to equity and common sense. Although my Broker tells me he (the Arbitrator) is engaged in Shipping business, and represents him as a man of experience and judgment, he has actually decided that, although I stated the deadweight of my ship at 600 tons, and proved it beyond dispute, yet am liable for that weight of general cargo (whether it be lucifers or iron, and there is a considerable portion of both, besides cargo of a similar nature), and ordered me to refund 347. of the lump sum agreed as freight, and expenses of arbitration. SHIPOWNER. Jan. 15, 1876.

[In a Charter-party it was stipulated that "one-half the cargo should be weight." The jury agreed that this meant weight as opposed to measurement, and not as opposed to

CHARTER-PARTIES.

lightness, and Baron Alderson held that the proper construction of the Charter-party was, therefore, that one-half of the cargo should be weight and one half measurement goods.("Ridgway v. Ewbank," Northern Circuit, Liverpool, Shap ping und Mercantile Gazette, April 9, 1839.) Had it been a question of dead freight, the Shipowner's claim would have depended on whether so much cargo had been shipped as the vessel could conveniently carry-(The Balgownie-" Nichol v. Ellis," Common Pleas, Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, July 2, 1851); but where a vessel is guaranteed to load a deadweight cargo, the freight is calculated upon weight, and not on weight and measurement. The decision of the arbitrator was, in our opinion, wrong.]

SECURITY FOR ADVANCES.

SIR,-A requires an advance on account of freight from B, with whom he is negotiating a Charter for his ship, which is a foreign one The vessel is to proceed in ballast to America, and there load a cargo for Europe. How can B be protected for his advance against A's creditors for supplies to himself or the ship? The advance is needed before the ship sails. Yours, &c.,

FOREIGN SHIPMASTER AND PART-OWNER. Liverpool, Oct. 11, 1876.

[To secure an absolute lien for advances is almost impossible. The best way is to have the ship assigned to the Agent of the person advancing the money, with power to collect the freight, to deduct the amount lent from the sums received, and to have the Bills of Lading indorsed to the effect that the amount advanced is to be paid to such Agent, no matter into whose hands the agency of the ship may fall. This, and an insurance or the personal security of a solvent party, if necessary, might make the loan comparatively secure.]

CASH ADVANCE AND NOTICE.

SIR,-I arrived off this Port on Saturday, January 20, but the Pilot would not take me in before 2.15 P.M. owing to the tide. The Custom-house closed at 3 P.M., consequently I did not get entered before Monday. I gave notice on the Saturday, at 3 P.M., that I was ready for the Monday, but the chiefs at the Agent's office not being there, it could not, I was told, be accepted until the Monday. They also referred me to the fact that the ship was not entered at the Customhouse (Charter says 24 hours after giving written notice). The ship having been turned over to another Shipper, I was told my notice could only be accepted from the Tuesday. On the 7th of February I tendered a notice that my vessel's days would expire at noon on the 8th, and I would claim from that time. 1st. Were they bound to accept my notice on the Saturday? 2nd. Could they turn me over to another house? 3rd. Õught I to have been paid the half-day Demurrage, as we did not finish until the 10th February at 8 P.M.? And 4th. Could they refuse to advance me cash for disbursements against the freight, as I was turned over? You will see by the Charter-party, enclosed for your perusal,