[1st. The 15 working days for loading at Kurrachee were to be computed "24 hours from time written notice is given by the Captain to the Charterer's Agents." The notice on the Saturday of the steamship being at the command of the Charterer's Agents on the Monday would constitute the Monday the first Lay-day. 2nd. Under the Charter it was agreed that the ship was to be consigned to the Chartering Brokers' Agents, and no Consignee is named in the memorandum. 3rd. The half-day would count as an entire day. 4th. Cash for ordinary disbursements at Kurrachee, not exceeding in amount 7007., was to be advanced at the current rate of exchange, free of interest, but subject to 24 per cent. commission. This would be binding on the Charterer; but unless the Brokers who acted for the Charterer in England made their Agents in Kurrachee liable for the advance, the latter could not be compelled to advance the cash. The advance should only be credited with the insurance and 2 per cent. commission. Any loss incurred through not advancing the cash would render the Charterer liable for breach of contract.]

DELAY ON THE VOYAGE.

SIR,-A vessel belonging to Ramsey was loaded with a cargo of salt on the 27th of August for me at Runcorn, and bound to Irvine. She has not yet arrived. Other vessels have left here, gone to Runcorn, come back again, sailed, and are now in Runcorn again since she was loaded. Have I any claim in a case of this sort upon the vessel? In the event of having any claim, how should I proceed? She is still lying in Ramsey, and fair winds for her. Irvine, Sept. 18, 1877.

JOHN WYLLIE.

[Any unnecessary departure from the shortest or most usual course, and any improper or unaccustomed stoppage at a Port, are deviations.-("Raine v. Bell," "Laroche v. Oswin," "Sheriff v. Potts," "Ashley v. Pratt.") A deviation without sufficient cause discharges Underwriters, and would give the owner of goods on board a ship that deviated a claim for damages if loss could be established in consequence of undue delay, or not sailing with a fair wind. Our Correspondent has no claim upon the vessel, but he may come upon the Owner for damages if he has sustained any by the delay. (See page 6, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

PART CARGO.-VESSEL DETAINED.

SIR, I agreed to take in a full cargo of stones at Whitby for Grimsby, and have now got on board a little more than half. They refuse to give me any more, as the works are

CHARTER PARTIES.

stopped through some impending lawsuit. How am I to proceed? The Shipper of the cargo told me to draw out an agreement, which I did, and handed it to him on the 8th of March to sign, and he was to give me a copy of the same to be stamped. All this was done in the presence of a witness. I have asked the Shipper to give me the copy every day since the 8th of March (Sunday excepted), but he says he has sent it to some other parties for them to look at, thereby stopping me from getting it stamped. How am I to proROBT. JOHNSON.

ceed?

Whitby, March 16, 1876.

[By the copy of the Charter-party forwarded to us, we observe that the vessel was to be "laden by the 13th of March, or the Merchant to lighter the cargo down to the bridge." If the vessel was not loaded by the 13th of March, the other condition would take effect-namely, the cargo tc be taken down to the bridge. This gives an implied permission to the Shipper to detain the vessel beyond the day fixed for finishing the loading. The Charter-party having been signed and acted upon, notice should be given that unless the loading is completed, the vessel will sail to Grimsby with what she has on board, and that the cargo will be held for chartered freight.]

STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU.

SIR, A Merchant charters a vessel in the regular way through a Broker, to load a cargo of potatoes in a Port in the Moray Firth for London. The Merchant having failed to pay some of the farmers for the potatoes delivered to the vessel, they (the farmers) arrest the cargo on board. The Captain repudiates the arrestment, and when the vessel is loaded signs Bills of Lading and sails, and having arrived at the Port of discharge, delivers the cargo on being paid freight. The farmers now hold the Owners of the vessel liable to them for the sum arrested, since they failed to recover the price of potatoes from either Shipper or Consignee. Can the Owners of the vessel be held liable for the consequences of the Captain's repudiating the arrestment? and can they be held liable in damages to the amount of arrestment by the farmers, who delivered the cargo to the Shipper? OWNER.

Macduff, Feb. 23, 1876.

[There was no contract, express or implied, between the seller of the potatoes and the Shipowner. The Shipmaster would not have been justified in handing over to the vendor the goods in question without an order from a Court or receiving an indemnification. When goods have been laden on board a vessel, and Bills of Lading signed, the Shipper is entitled to receive them back again on paying the freight and landing charges, on delivering up the Bills of Lading, and guaranteeing the Shipowner against all claims by the Consignee. (See letter "Stoppage of Cargo," page 117, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

CONSIGNEE OF SHIP OR OF CARGO.

SIR,-I discharged a cargo of codfish at Genoa from Newfoundland, and on the voyage I made jettison. By the terms of the Charter-party (a copy of which I enclose) I must deliver the cargo to the holders of the Bill of Lading on being paid the stipulated freight, without any deduction as Commission; and there is, further, no clause in the Charter entitling the Receiver of the cargo or any other person to do the ship's business, and no mention made as to the consignment of the ship. I therefore, on my arrival at Genoa, appointed an Agent, who did all that was necessary in the matter of the Average. On applying to the Consignees of the cargo for my freight, they tendered the amount less 2 per cent. on amount of the Average, which they claim as Consignees of the cargo, and, as they consider themselves, of the ship also. Do you consider the Consignees of the caro are also, as a matter of course, Consignees of the ship, although nothing to that effect appears on the Charter

CHARTER-PARTIES.

party; or was I justified in appointing an Agent, and is he entitled to the Commission on the amount of the Average? Genoa, March 15, 1876. JAMES WILSON, Master. [There was no stipulation in the Charter-party as to the consignment of the ship. The Consignee of a cargo has no right to constitute himself Consignee of the ship in the absence of any agreement.]

CONSIGNEE AND ORDERS AT PORT OF CALL. SIR,-In Maritime Notes and Queries I do not see a case similar to my own. I arrived here for orders, consigned "to order" in Bill of Lading, and cannot trace my Consignee, either by advertising or writing to the principal Consignees of similar cargoes. The ship has spent all her Lay-days, and nearly all those on Demurrage. How am I to proceed afterwards? It would assist Shipmasters who are similarly circumstanced by having your opinion in your books of reference, which are read very often at sea by JOHN C. DAVISON, Master of barque Mary, of Falmouth, March 21, 1876. North Shields. [The cargo of sugar cannot be discharged until the vessel has complied with the Custom-house Regulations. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, Section 66, provides that the term "Report" shall mean the report required by the Customs Laws; and the word "Entry" the entry required to be made for the landing or discharge of goods from an importing ship. The word "Shipowner" includes the Master of the ship and every other person authorised to act as Agent for the Owner, "or entitled to receive the freight, Demurrage, or other charges payable in respect of such ship." Where the Owner of goods from foreign parts fails to make entry, or, having made entry, to land or take delivery of the same, the Shipowner may at any time after that named in the Charter-party or Bill of Lading, or if there is no time for delivery stipulated upon, then after the expiration of 72 hours (exclusive of a Sunday or holiday) after the report of the ship, land and warehouse the cargo (Sec. 67) “subject to a lien for freight or other charges payable to the Shipowner to an amount to be mentioned in such notice; the goods so landed shall, in the hands of the wharf or warehouseowner, continue to be liable to the same lien, if any, for such charges as they were subject to before the landing thereof." -(Sec. 68.) If the Charter-party gave a lien for Demurrage, the cargo could be held for freight, and any Demurrage incurred. At the end of 90 days the Wharfinger and Warehouseowner may sell the goods (Sec. 73) if the lien is not discharged; but before submitting the goods to auction the Warehouseowner must give notice by advertisement in two newspapers circulating in the district, or in one London newspaper (the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette), and in one local journal. Our Correspondent's case has the peculiarity about it that the ship is not at a regular Port of discharge, but only at a Port of call. When the Lay-days have expired, and the Demurrage-days also, if no lien is given for Demurrage, we would advise our Correspondent to consult a Merchant of experience in the Sugar Trade as to the propriety of discharging at Falmouth. If the place is not a convenient one for the disposal of such a cargo, then the vessel should go to the nearest and best market, and commence to discharge, and land the sugar, subject to the liens thereon. As a rule, in the event of no Consignee being named in the Bill of Lading, or none being found after advertising, it is a prudent course to communicate with the Shipper of the goods, or the Charterer, and ask for instructions, where this can be done by telegraph or without entailing any unreasonable delay. The Master of a ship is supposed to act with discretion and judgment, and to lessen

PORT OF CALL AND FINAL DESTINATION. SIR,-A ship chartered to load in Bolivia had the following clauses in her Charter-party :-"Should the ship c ordered direct to a Port of discharge, instead of to a Port of call, the freight to be 2s. 6d. per ton less. And should the ship not arrive at her Port of call before the 1st of Oct., she is not to be ordered to Copenhagen or north of the Elbe." Whilst loading, the ship was on Demurrage, and the Captain, seeing he might not arrive by the 1st of Oct., sent the Merchant a letter, stating that he would hold him responsible for all losses arising from the delay which would prevent him arriving in the Channel by the time specified. When the cargo was completed the ship was ordered to Copenhagen direct, there being at this time less than 100 days to arrive by the 1st of October. Ship did not arrive in the mouth of the Channel until the 5th of October. Was she bound to proceed to Copenhagen? If not, was she justified in making a Port of call to ascertain what other Port the cargo was to be sent to? And if the Owner afterwards consented to allow the ship to proceed to Copenhagen, what would be a fair and reasonable amount of extra freight to allow the ship, to include the extra insurance for breaking warranties (calculated to amount to 4s. per ton), and to compensate for the loss of time, risk, and extra wear and tear, she not being able to start until Oct. 20?-Yours, &c., Swansea, Dec. 27, 1876. SHIPOWNER.

[The ship did not arrive at her Port of call before the 1st of October, and therefore she could not have been ordered to the north of the Elbe; but the vessel would be at liberty to touch at a Port of call. The Charterer not being empowered to send the vessel to Copenhagen, the Shipowner would have to agree upon the extra terms with the parties who desire the cargo to be delivered at the Port named.]

PORT OF CALL AND FINAL DESTINATION. SIR,-In your issue of Dec. 29 you were good enough to answer our letter relating to a ship arriving in this channel from Bolivia after Oct. 1. It has been inferred, however, that the question has not been stated with sufficient clearness. We would also mention that, at the time of chartering, the limitation of Oct. 1 was inserted at the special request of the O ner to avoid extra insurance on the ship and freight, as well as the extra wear and tear and delay that a 1,000 tons burthen ship would be liable to, not only in proceeding to Copenhagen after Oct. 1, but also on account of the detention of 30 or 40 days there, and afterwards on leaving it. We enclose for your inspection, with the Charter-party, a copy of a protest handed the Shipper by the Captain, complaining of the delay in loading and stating that unless the ship was loaded at a certain date he would not have time to reach his Port of destination. The ship was not loaded until a fortnight after the time referred to, and the Charterers argue that, because the Captain received orders and sailed direct for Copenhagen without further protesting, he was bound to go there. To this we reply, that as there were over 90 days left before the 1st of October, it was within the range of probability that the ship would arrive; that it was his duty to make the attempt; but that, no other orders being given

CHARTER-PARTIES.

where to proceed in the event of the ship not arriving in the Channel by the time stated, the Captain had no alternative but to make a Port of call for orders. The Charterers further argue that, according to the wording of the Charter, they were at liberty to order the ship direct to Copenhagen, no matter what time of the year she would arrive. To this we reply that the options in the Charter should only be exercised when there was time for both to be reasonably practicable, and that it was never contemplated the ship should proceed from a Port of call (or from abreast of a Port of call) after Oct. 1; that the clause was inserted for a special purpose to protect the interests of the Owner; and that it would be without meaning if the Charterers' interpretation be correct. Under the circumstances, was the ship justified in putting into a Port of call for fresh orders, or was she obliged at any time of the year to proceed direct to Copenhagen? Yours, &c., SHIPOWNERS.

Swansea, Feb. 8, 1877.

[The ship when chartered was on her passage from the River Plate to Callao, and after discharging her cargo at the latter Port she was to proceed to Mejillones to load for the United Kingdom, the Continent not south of Bordeaux, and not to be ordered to the north of the Elbe if arriving at a Port of call after Oct. 1, nor to the Baltic or Cronstadt after Sept. 1; but "if the ship be ordered to a direct Port of discharge on signing Bills of Lading, the sum of 2s. 6d. per ton to be deducted from the freight." For loading at Mejillones three running Lay-days (Sundays and feast days not to be considered as such) were to be allowed for every 100 tons of cargo, reckoning from the time the vessel was ready to receive, and 10 days on Demurrage. The ship was ordered direct to Copenhagen, and therefore was not bound to call at Falmouth or Queenstown. It was the intention of the Shipowner that his vessel should not be ordered to Copenhagen after arriving at a Port of call after Oct. 1. The ship did not arrive in the Chops of the Channel until Oct. 5, and this delay was occasioned through the Charterers not loading the vessel according to the terms of the agreement. If the ship was detained in loading 14 days beyond the Lay-days and Demurrage days, that was a breach of the contract, for which speci 1 damages might be claimed; and if the detention prevented the Master from reaching the Channel, as contemplated, before the 1st of October, the Shipowner would be entitled to extra compensation in the shape of damages or of freight. The ship having been unreasonably detained, the Master would be justified in putting into a Port of call, and should not be compelled to go to Copenhagen.]

CHOICE OF PORTS.

SIR,-I loaded a cargo of salt for Gruitness and Sandsair, or Lerwick. Gruitness has been disposed of. Neither the Charter-party nor the Bill of Lading states which of the parties are to have the selection. Have I, therefore, or the Merchant, the option of choosing one of the two latter Ports? -Yours, &c., SHIPMASTER.

Lerwick, Oct. 25, 1876.

[It is customary in contracts of affreightment, where a choice of Ports is given, for the Charterer or his Agent to select which of the Ports he pleases.]

CUSTOM OF PORT.

SIR, Our steamer Emma Lawson arrived in Hull Roads from Galatz at 6 P.M. on Friday, the 29th Sept., was docked about 5 A.M. on Saturday morning, and was reported as soon as the Custom-house opened the same day. By the Charter (a copy of which we enclose for your perusal), the Merchant had 12 running-days for loading and discharging cargo. We claim to count our discharging-days from Saturday morning, but the Receiver of cargo alleges that by the custom of Hull our days do not commence until Monday morning. As the

CHARTER-PARTIES.

vessel was under a general Charter, and not fixed specially for the Port of Hull, we contend we are not bound by any custom of that Port; and that therefore our days commence to count from the time of reporting.-Yours, &c.,

Whitby, Oct. 17, 1876. THOS. TURNBULL & SON. [No mention of the custom of the Port governing the Laydays is to be found in the Charter-party; and therefore the written contract must settle the question. The first Lay-day would be the Saturday.]

[1st. Rouen is not a Port on the coast between Hamburg and Brest, and has never, to our knowledge, been treated as such in Charter-parties. Rouen is 57 miles up the Seine, and the cost of towage upwards has always been so great as to cause the cargoes to be charged with half the expenses. 2nd. On the authority of custom. 3rd. The exemption can only be removed by adding after "Hamburg and Brest," in contracts of affreightment, the words "Rouen included."]

BILBAO PORT AND CHARGES. SIR,-Seeing Bilbao is growing into such an important place for steamers, will you inform me-1st. Whether it be true that vessels drawing over 11 feet cannot load afloat in the place? 2nd. Whether vessels exceeding 10 feet cannot safely cross the bar except at spring tides, and that many steamers have been detained so long as a week waiting for water? 3rd. Whether the steamer is required to pay a duty on the cargo of four pesetas per ton, or, if not, what is the duty ?-Yours, &c., VEDRA.

Sunderland, Dec. 6, 1876.

[1st. The larger class of vessels load or discharge at Portugalete, at the entrance to the River Nervion, or at Olaveaga, four and three-quarter miles up from the bar, or at San Nicolas, where they can lie afloat. Bilbao is seven and three-quarter miles from the bar, and vessels of nine feet draught can get there on the top of spring tides, or seven feet on high-water neap tides. At Bilbao ships load aground. 2nd. The bar at the mouth of the Nervion is influenced by prevailing winds, but at the top of the best spring tides the Pilots, if the sea be smooth, will take a vessel in drawing 14 feet. At high-water neap tides, with a sea on, no vessel could safely enter drawing more than 10 feet. Steamers must consequently be detained if they draw over 13 feet. 3rd. The Spanish dues on Shipping are divided into three

CHARTER-PARTIES.

classes. The first class comprises the Home or Coasting Trade, and the trade between Ports or places in the Peninsula and the Balearic and Canary Isles and penal settlements in Africa, and the dues on vessels in this class are 74. (750.) per ton of 1,000 kilogrammes, to be borne by the Shipowner, and on all kinds of goods landed 5d. (50c.) per 1,000 kilogrammes, to be paid by the Merchant. In the second class are included all vessels between the last-named Ports, and any others in Europe or on the Asiatic and African Coast of the Mediterranean, and in Africa on the Atlantic Ocean as far as Cape Mogadore. The dues on vessels in this class are, per ton of 1,000 kilogrammes, 1s. C‡d. (1 pe2e*a 25c.); and the tax on the third class, comprising Ports not before mentioned, is 23. 1d. (2 pesetas 59c.)]

ADJACENT PORTS.

SIR, We recently chartered a vessel for three trins from London to the Bristol Channel. By a clause in the Charterparty the Owners were allowed to take a return cargo “ to London or adjacent Port." Which Ports do you consider are adjacent to London? and can the French Ports of Dieppe and Havre be justly considered as coming within this definition ?-Yours, &c., MERCHANTS.

London, May 8, 1877.

[The vessel was ostensibly chartered for coasting voyages, with liberty to the Owners on the return passage from the Bristol Channel to bring cargoes to London or an adjacent Port. The Continental Ports would not be included in that arrangement. The Ports which may be regarded as adjacent to London are Rochester, Ramsgate, Colchester, Harwich, and Ipswich.]

WISBEACH AND EAST COAST PORT. SIR,-One of my vessels was chartered at St. Malo to load a cargo of wheat for a good and safe Port on the East Coast of England, orders on siguing Bills of Lading. These were afterwards made out for Wisbeach and inadvertently signed by the Master. Is Wisbench a good and safe Port on the East Coast? and if not, have I any remedy against the Merchant for extra freight ?-Yours, &c.,

Yarmouth, May 25, 1877.

ALPHA.

[Under the Charter quoted the ship could be delivered at any coal loading Port in England or Wales. At Grimsby and Hull coal is shipped in large quantities, and therefore they are coal-loading Ports. We do not, however, know of any legal decision in which the Humber Ports have been declared to be coal-lading Ports within the language of Charter-parties, if our Correspondent refers to Baltic charters, and the old custom in relation thereto which referred to the Ports between the Tees and Blyth.]

PELOTAS.

SIR,-What sort of place is Peletas, near Rio Grande do Sul, to send a ship to? Draught of water? Ar dues heavy? Oct. 12, 1877. SHIPOWNER.

CHARTER-PARTIES.

[Pelotas, or San Francesco de Paula, is situated on the Lake des Patos, about 24 miles N.W. from Rio Grande do Sul. As the Port of Rio Grande do Sul stands at the mouth, and is formed by the outlet, of the lake named, the Sailing Directions for the navigation and the entrance to that inland sea apply to Pelotas. There is a depth of water sufficient for moderate-sized vessels up the lake to Pelotas; but the loading or discharging accommodation is not extensive. As no vessel ought to take the bar at Rio Grande do Sul, or proceed up the lake, without a Pilot, the charges are enhanced to that extent; but the Port expenses are not excessively high.]

EAST COAST OF IRELAND.

SIR,-My vessel was chartered to load a cargo of wheat or grain at Cronstadt as per enclosed Charter. On calling at Elsinore, she was ordered to Waterford. Is Waterford considered the East Coast of Ireland, and, if not, what extra frei ht (if any) would I be entitled to? OWNER. Macduff, Oct. 5, 1877.

[Waterford faces South, and is not, therefore, on the East Coast of Ireland. The East Coast of Ireland ends at Carnsore Point.]

GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL CHANNEL. SIR,-The old question appears to have been again asked in a recent number of your Paper, "Is Gloucester considered a Port in the Bristol Channel? and to have been on this occasion answered by you," Gloucester is not a Port in or on the Bristol Channel, but on the River Severn." I must ask you again, as I did some 15 years ago, is Bristol a Port on the Bristol Channel? I contend that on any principle excluding Gloucester, Bristol, which is situated on a tributary of the River Severn, is still more absolutely excluded; and, on similar principles, Newport, Bridgwater, Swansea, and even Cardiff, are also not in the Channel. Bristol has felt herself to be so far up her tributary stream, that she has planned the extensive, but unfortunate, works at the mouth of it, where it debouches into the River Severn, some eight miles below her own docks. Be it remembered that the same roadstead· of Kingroad is common to Gloucester and Bristol, and that the tide that bears one ship into Bristol Docks bears the other by her side into Gloucester.-Yours, &c., HENRY WADDY.

BRISTOL PORT AND DOCK.

SIR,-I am interested in a large steamer now on passage from the Black Sea to United Kingdom for orders, with grain. Should she receive orders to discharge at Bristol, and arrive at Kingroad at neaps, could she, in your opinion, claim to discharge at the Avonmouth Dock; and further, could the authorities at the dock compel the steamer to allow them to discharge cargo, their tariff being as much again as what other Stevedores are asking ?-Yours, &c.,

Bristol, Feb. 28, 1877. A STEAMSHIP OWNER. [The steamer would have to go up to Bristol if the Merchant wishes to discharge her there, and the master would

CHARTER-PARTIES.

CHARTER-PARTIES.

have to wait the rise of the tide to proceed up the Avon. The authorities at the Avonmouth Dock could not compel the Master to stop and discharge there.]

EAST LONDON.

SIR,-As the columns of your Paper are always open to the publication of matters interesting or profitable to the Shipowner, I take the liberty of addressing you on the subject of the Port of East London, in the Cape Colony, my only object in so doing being to prevent any unwary Shipowner from being led into a trap, as I and my co-partner have been. The place is quite unfit for anything but very small craft to go to. There is no harbour and all ships must lie out in the open sea and discharge into lighters, which can only be done in calm weather; and some idea may be formed of the climate when I say that one vessel lay there 83 days, and out of that time she had only 22 days of weather such as they could work in; and, to make matters worse, there are few lighters to be had to discharge the ships with. I think it my duty thus to make known the prospect there is for anyone sending their steamers out to such a place, which must be my excuse for thus trespassing on your valuable space.Yours, &c., THOMAS ROBSON.

North Shields, Sept. 6, 1876.

[There is water on the Bar for vessels drawing 8 feet, and 16 feet in the anchorage ground inside the mouth of the river.]

ROCHESTER AND THE EAST COAST. SIR,-Does Rochester belong to the East Coast of England ?-that is to say, can a Merchant order a ship to Rochester if she is chartered to the East Coast of England? or does Rochester belong to the river of London ?-Yours, &c., Konigsberg, Feb. 11, 1877. GUSTAV MOELLER.

[We have always understood that the East Coast of England, in the language of Charters, extended from the Thames to Berwick-on-Tweed. In the case, however, of the Jutland (s), Bailey and Leetham v. Woodhams and Levy" (Queen's Bench Division, Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Feb. 7, 1877), certain Shipowners gave evidence to this effect; but two or three Corn Merchants were produced by the defendants, who stated that they had sold cargoes to Rochester paying East Coast freight, although there had been disputes about the rate. The jury held that Rochester was on the East Coast, in direct opposition to the finding of the jury in the case of "Faulding v. Walker" (Northern Circuit, York, March 1850), that the East Coast is understood to extend from the Thames to Peterhead. The point must therefore be regarded as still unsettled.]

EASTWARD OF USHANT.

SIR,-There is a difference of opinion as to the Dock Dues payable upon a vessel sailing hence to Bordeaux and arriving from that Port under the enclosed printed list of rates. The Shipowner maintains that Bordeaux is included in the wording of the clause, quoting 5d. per ton, as it reads "Any Port or place in Germany, Holland, Flanders, France, to the eastward of Ushant;" and certainly Bordeaux is a Port in France eastward of Ushant. On the other hand, the Aire and Calder Navigation maintain that Bordeaux comes under clause "all other foreign Ports and places," and should be charged 9d. per ton. If the clause had specified Ports on the North coast of France to the eastward of Ushant, no question could have arisen; but it is contended that the reading of the clause includes Bordeaux as entitled to be charged only 5d. per ton, that Port being in France, to the eastward of Ushant. Should Bordeaux, under this printed form, be charged 5d. or 9d. per ton? SHIPOWNER.

Goole, Dec. 14, 1876.

[The French Coast from Ushant to Calais lies to the E. and N.E., and from Brest to Bordeaux the direction is S. Ve are of opinion that it was not contemplated in the

above-cited clause to include Bordeaux as a Port to the eastward of Ushant.]

CRANE BERTH.

SIR,-A vessel is chartered to load a cargo of coal at a usual crane loading berth, and the Charter runs thus:"Vessel to proceed to a crane berth at Leith, or so near thereto as she can safely get, six working days for loading." The ship was ready to go to the crane berth, but as other vessels were in turn she could not get there. The Merchants were prepared to send the coal alongside, but were prevented as the vessel had not got alongside the crane She lay 10 days waiting her turn, and when she got alongside the crane she was loaded in two days. The Merchants insist that they were not bound to find the crane berth, and that the words "or so near thereto as she can safely get" have only reference to her being ordered to a berth where she had not water. Besides, it is the duty of the Captain to book his vessel and pay a fee for securing his turn for a berth. On the other hand, the Owners assert that they went as near to the crane berth as they were permitted, and so far fulfilled their part of the contract. Do you consider this a case for Demurrage or not?-Yours, &c., SUBSCRIBER,

Glasgow, Aug. 9, 1876.

[The vessel was to proceed to a crane berth, or so near to a crane berth as she could safely get; and when she reached as near thereto as she could safely get, the Lay-days would commence.]

CHANGING BERTHS.-VESSEL AGROUND. SIR,-1st, the Charter-party I hold states my ship is to lie afloat at the lowest tide. She is never afloat at that interval. The Pilot moored me in a berth, and on arrival there the Merchant remarked that it would be more advantageous to lay alongside his warehouses, where he could receive the cargo with greater facility. I did so, and moored my vessel a mile further up the river. After a few days' working in unloading he wants me to drop astern, as my vessel in her position lies between two of his sheds, to be opposite one warehouse and then pull ahead to be opposite another. As I explained above I repeat here, that my vessel grounds and lists at all low tides in her present berth, which spot is imagined to be one of the deepest in the river. Am I obliged to move my vessel about as above mentioned at the beck and call of the Merchant, and, if compelled to do so, at whose expense? 2nd. From date of arrival at my berth in harbour I have 17 Lay-days, 10 of which have expired already. In the interest of my vessel, I have always remonstrated with the Merchant about "slow work." A couple of days ago I received a letter in which the Merchant writes to me that the ship is being discharged slowly, and he is ready to put on another gang. On calling on him to come to an understanding about this proposal, he remarked that I was to provide an extra Meter and extra hands, besides my Crew and present Meter gang. The Crew muster, all told, 12 hands, nine of whom are effective, and are now at work at the cargo. The three others are myself, Cook, and a boy. The Meter gang consists of four men. Am I bound to provide an extra Meter gang and extra labour, besides my Crew and Meter on board at present, at the request of the Merchant, or has he to provide the extra labour if he wishes to effect the discharge quicker than it is being actually done? In case these expenses are to be borne by the Merchant, and he avoids them, I suppose my Demurrage-days can be claimed without doubt immediately my Lay-days expire, viz. in seven days?-Yours, &c.,

CAPTAIN OF A FOREIGN VESSEL OF Yarmouth, Dec. 23, 1876. 886 TONS REGISTER. [1st. For the convenience of discharge, the Master should move his vessel; but when there is no stipulation to change berths, the expense of doing so falls on the receiver of the goods. 2nd. The Merchant is entitled to take the whole of the Lay-days in unloading; and if the Shipowner desires his vessel to be despatched before those days have expired, any charges incurred through extra Meters or labourers must be paid by the Master of the vessel.]