COLLISION.

DAMAGED IN DOCK.

SIR,-My vessel was in dock, properly moored, when a steamer ran into her stern, breaking the stern moorings, and sending her ahead, whereby she did damage to another vessel lying ahead. Can the Captain of that vessel come upon me for the damage done to his vessel, or should he sue the Captain of the steamer, the latter being the sole cause of the damage done to both mine and his vessel ?-Yours, &c., Middlesborough, Sept. 7, 1876. CAPTAIN.

[Our Correspondent's ship, No. 2, damaged vessel No. 3, and he must therefore pay for the damage unless he can show that it was caused by vessel No. 1.-(See "The Alfreda v. The Sisters," Admiralty Court, London, Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, July 9, 1875.)]

SLIPPING FROM ANCHOR.

SIR, Two schooners were riding at anchor in a very heavy gale on an open shore. Schooner A, having Abbott's anchors and 1 cables, would without doubt have rode out the gale but for the following circumstances. Schooner B happened to be lying outside A with only one anchor down, and her Master was on shore. The consequence was that B drove down on A, and both were likely to have foundered with their Crews. The Mate on board schooner B called to the Master of A to slip, as the only chance of saving both from this sad end, and the Master of A accordingly did so. She drove on shore and became a total wreck. Schooner B afterwards rode out the gale. Schooner A being insured in a Mutual Insurance Society having a rule that, if lost upon an open shore, 10 per cent. shall be deducted from the insurance, seeing that the Master of schooner B was not on board, and that the Mate did not let go the second anchor, and schooner A having slipped in order to prevent the loss of both vessels and Crews-under these circumstances, are not the Owners of schooner B liable to contribute towards the 10 per cent. loss sustained by the Owner of schooner A? -Yours, &c., TIMON OF ATHENS.

Feb. 19, 1877.

[We would advise the Owner of B, if the facts are as represented, to pay the percentage demanded, for it is possible that he might be made liable for the entire loss of A.-(See cases at page 44, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.; and page 66, Vol. III.)]

BREAKING ADRIFT.

SIR,-Can I claim damages under the following circumstances:-My vessel (a schooner) was moored near the landing stage or railway quay at Aberdovey, with two cables out, fore and aft, during a gale on Tuesday the 30th of January last, when a brigantine broke from her moorings and carried away my schooner's rigging, with her jibboom, which had not been rigged in. There was no one on board my vessel at the time, but the Captain was on board the brigantine. There are no rules, nor is there a Harbour Master. Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER.

Aberdovey, Feb. 7, 1877.

[If the vessel that broke adrift was not properly moored, or her ground tackle was insufficient to hold her, our Correspondent would have a claim for damages, but not if the accident was purely inevitable. "Though a vessel be at anchor, or lying in a harbour in an improper position, still it is the duty of the other vessel, if in her power, without doing damage to herself or others, to avoid a collision. A vessel at anchor, or lying in a harbour, cannot have blame imputed to her the same as if she were at sea.”—(The Accommodation v. The Harlequin, Admiralty Court, May 23, 1856.)]

CO-OWNERSHIP.

[Section 13 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, applies the whole of Part III. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, to lightvessels, with the exception of certain clauses. The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are, however, enacted by Section 25, and Schedule, of the Act of 1862. A lightvessel in a tidal river is a British ship at anchor in a fairway channel, and in the event of imminency of collision she would be governed by Art. 20 of the Regulations, and would be required to sheer off; but for wilfully or negligently running foul of a lightvessel there is a penalty of 502. incurred, besides the damage done.-(Section 414, Act of 1854.)]

FOUL BERTH.

SIR, Which vessel is liable for damage in the following ense?-My vessel brought up in the roadstead with a clear berth, and the whole of the Crew came ashore in the daytime. Another vessel anchored and gave her a foul berth, and the breeze freshening, with a weather tide, they sheered into one another and did damage. The other vessel claims from me as I had no one on board, but I argue that if they had given me a clear berth it would not have happened.Yours, &c., FISHERMAN.

Yarmouth, Aug. 2, 1876.

[If a vessel brings up so close to another as not to admit of swinging, that is a foul berth, but another vessel may be in fault for not taking proper precautions.-(The Jamaica . The Sephora, Admiralty Court, Dec. 19, 1857.) A collision may be avoided by veering out chain, or yawing, but this, of course, cannot be done if there is no one on board a vessel. If an anchor is too light to hold a vessel, her Owner would be liable for damage where no contributory negligence could otherwise be proved.]

CO-OWNERSHIP.

MANAGING OWNER'S ACCOUNTS.

SIR,-I own shares in a steamship managed by a Co-owner, and receive statements after each voyage, giving total disbursements at each Port, without defining or detailing each account as per his vouchers. Can I compel the Managing Owner to give me a statement of each voyage, detailing every payment made?—Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER. Newcastle, Oct. 24, 1876.

[If the Managing Owner, on receiving his appointment, undertook to deliver full voyage accounts, and has faiiel to do so, he may be proceeded against in the Admiralty Court. It is not customary for Managers to supply details of all payments. The accounts are generally gone into at a meeting of Co-owners, and in many cases an auditor is appointed.]

UNDERWRITING CO-OWNERSHIP ACCOUNTS. SIR,-An Owner of, say, four sixty-fourths in a vessel which is kept fully insured by the Managing Owner wishes to risk his interest in the ship. He accordingly arranges with the Manager to receive a pro rata share of the average premium paid, and, in the event of a loss, to stand quits. In the case of some Underwriter or Insurance Company failing (supposing a loss of the ship), would this Owner le chargeable with any part of such loss? Would it not be in order to collect all the insurance, excepting the amount of his interest, square up accounts, and divide the balance (sixty sixty-fourths) by one-sixtieths among the remaining Owners? Or would it be necessary, in settling up a loss, to collect the insurance, and also from him the amount on which he received premium, settle up, and let him have four sixty-fourths of the result, even if that result should be a loss owing, say, to the failure of some company? If an Owner chooses to risk his interest, it does not look fair that he should in any way be responsible for the Underwriters of the other Owners. And yet the other Owners may say, "Why not, since he received premiums, treat him as an

[If a Co-Owner requests the Manager not to insure his share in the vessel, and receives the premium that would have been paid on that account, he simply receives his share of the earnings of the ship, and could not be made liable for the failure of Underwriters who insure the shares of others. The premiums must be collected from those who authorised the Manager to insure their shares, and from them alone. If the Manager insures the whole ship, and not a given number of shares therein, he does so at his own risk.]

REPAIRS AND ACCOUNTS.

SIR,-I have held 4-64th shares of a vessel for the last 12 years, and have not had a scrap of an account whatever from her during that time; only about two years since I received 31. as profit. The vessel was stranded in the United Kingdom, and repaired extensively without the consent of any of the Owners. Am I liable for my share of the above repairs, the Captain being Managing Owner and holding a large interest in the vessel?-Yours, &c., A PART-OWNER. Jan. 24, 1877.

[The Co-Owners appear to have neglected their interests in not making the Managing Owner furnish regular accounts, and in not having them audited. Our Correspondent would be liable to the Managing Owner for his share of the repairs under the circumstances; but if he wishes to raise a question of Co-Ownership accounts, he can do so.]

[1st. If under the deed of appointment the Manager is not required to furnish each Co-Owner with a detailed copy of the accounts, the copy certified as correct by the Auditors would be sufficient. 2nd. If no meeting has been called, or accounts submitted, or explanations given, the Manager might allow the Co-Owners to examine the books; but this is an unusual occurrence. The Co-Owners might institute a suit in the Admiralty Court on the earnings of the ship, and then the books would have to be produced.]

CO-OWNERSHIP ACCOUNTS.

SIR, A, B, C, D, and E are Owners of a vessel, of which E is Managing Owner, he having been elected by the majority of Owners, there being no Articles of Association, or any other special regulations, in existence. E summons a general meeting of the Owners to settle up the accounts of the vessel, at which A (the Owner of 16 64ths) expresses his inability to attend. The meeting is held, and the accounts, which show a balance due from the Owners, are audited and found correct by the other Owners, and A, on being applied to for his proportion, refuses to accept the accounts as correct, claiming the right to have them, with the vouchers, placed at his disposal at any time during business hours that may be convenient to the Managing Owner. The books and vouchers having been produced at the general meeting, the Managing Owner asserts that A has no right to again ask for them to be produced, and refuses to do so. What are their relative legal positions? Must A contribute his pro-rata proportion to the balance standing against the ship, without being able to verify the figures for himself, or must E place books and vouchers at his disposal as requested? London, Oct. 5, 1877. SUBSCRIBERS.

CO-OWNERSHIP.

[Where there is no deed of appointment or-as in registered companies Articles of Association to provide for public meetings and audit of accounts, the question must be left to be settled by a Court of Law in the event of dispute. As between a few Co-Owners, it is more a matter of courtesy than of right; but where a Manager holds a large number of shares and can secure the votes of others by orders or influence, an absent Co-Owner's interest cannot be satisfactorily protected. Unless there is something to conceal, no harm could be done by allowing a Co-Owner, as in this case, to look over the papers. A Co-Owner who refuses to pay his contribution can have the accounts, with vouchers, produced in Court in the case of a suit to recover moneys due, to establish proof of the debt.]

SHARES AND CO-OWNER'S DEBTS.

SIR,-A has an interest in a vessel (say the Alpha), and owes, say, 40l. to B for goods supplied to himself and family. A delays to pay B his account. Is it competent for B to arrest the Alpha for A's interest in her; or, in taking proceedings against him, would it be on the Registrar of Customs where the vessel is registered that an arrestment should be served ?-Yours, &c., A READER.

Nov. 22, 1876.

[An ordinary creditor has no lien on a ship or shares therein for goods supplied to the family of a Co-Owner, and he could not arrest a ship in order to sell a debtor's share in her.]

PROCEEDS OF BANKRUPT CO-OWNER. SIR, A bankrupt absconded from here some years ago, having some shares in a ship, which have been in the hands of the Manager ever since, with all the proceeds. She was lost some time since. The Manager still holds the proceeds. Is he not amenable to the law for so doing, or what is the course he should have pursued with the property ?-Yours, &c., SHIPBROKER.

Sunderland, Sept. 20, 1876. [The trustees of the bankrupt could make the Managing Owner account for the moneys in his possession.]

DISPUTE AS TO INCOMPETENT MASTER. SIR,-With respect to my letter in your impression of the 4th, can a Co-Owner, in addition to discharging a duly qualified Master holding a certificate of competency, ship in his place a boy 16 years old, and who has not been six months at sea? This youth is, it is said, to become a Pilot, hence his quick promotion. Last, but not least, this appointment of an entirely unqualified Master invalidates our insurance. If a Managing Owner can do all this without consulting his partner, what may he not do?-Yours, &c., Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oct. 11, 1876. CO-OWNER.

["It is the duty of the Owner to have the ship properly equipped, and for that purpose it is necessary that he should. provide a competent Master and Crew in the first instance; but, having done this, he has discharged his duty."—(Judge Bayley, in "Walker v. Maitland.") Our Correspondent should notify the Manager that if he employs an incompetent Master, and thus imperils the employment of the ship and vitiates the insurance, he will be held personally liable for all losses and damages thereby incurred.]

REPAIRS AND CO-OWNERSHIP.

SIR, I hold shares in a vessel which was, without my knowledge or consent, placed in dry dock by the Managing Owner. Immediately on my hearing of this, and that the repairs were certain to amount to a very large sum, and before the work was commenced, I gave written notice to both the Managers, also to the Dockowners, that I would not hold myself responsible for any such costly repairs. The vessel has since cleared off a portion of the dock bill, which

CO-OWNERSHIP.

the Manager, of course, holds (together with the profit off a previous voyage); but I would like your opinion as to whether, in the event of the vessel being lost, I can be compelled to pay the balance of my proportion of the dock bill, incurred without my sanction? I have not increased my insurance since the repairs in question were effected.-Yours, &c., Newcastle, Jan. 2, 1877. CO-OWNER.

[Our Correspondent could not be made personally liable to the Shipwright under the circumstances mentioned. Without, however, knowing the terms under which the Manager holds his office, and all the facts relating to shares held by Co-Owners, and the cost of the repairs, and the value of the ship when repaired, we could not advise further.-(See, however, letters at pages 31 and 32, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III., for further information.)]

LIABILITY OF CO-OWNERS.

SIR,-A claim has been made by a Broker against the Owners of a vessel for Harbour Dues, clearing, advances to Seamen and Captain, butcher's and grocer's account, &c. The account was sent to the Ship's Husband at the time (1874), and he charged the Owners with the amount but never paid it. The Ship's Husband's estate is now in liquidation. Are the Owners liable for all or any of the BROKER. before-mentioned items?-Yours, &c.,

Port Talbot, March 20, 1877.

[The Co-Owners of the vessel would be jointly and severally liable for the difference between the sum recovered under the debtor's estate and that due for expenses incurred on account of the ship.]

MAJORITY OF CO-OWNERS.

SIR,-What is meant by a majority of Co-Owners? Does it mean a numerical majority of Owners or a preponderance of shares without respect to the number of Owners who hold A READER. a majority of the shares?-Yours, &c., Glasgow, Aug. 5, 1876.

[A majority of Co-Owners means the holders of the largest portion of the shares.]

UNREGISTERED CO-OWNERS.

SIR-I have noticed the replies to "Querist" in your issue of April 6, and "A Subscriber," April 14. Are all Owners in ships and steamers liable for debts contracted for ship's stores when the vessel is registered only in one name or firm, such being the Managing or Joint Owner, the co-partners holding unregistered Bills of Sale, or only receipts or notes that they have paid for or hold shares? In case of the Managing Owner, or only Registered Owner or Owners, failing, would not the same liability attach to such Owners as were Owners, although not on the Register as Owners? April 19, 1876.

MERCHANT.

[It is not necessary, unless for the purpose of securing a Parliamentary title, to register the names of Co-Owners; but whether the name of a Co-Owner is or is not on the Register, he may be sued for debts incurred if it can be proved that he is a Co-Owner.]

BANKRUPT MANAGING OWNER. SIR,-A Managing Owner orders stores for a ship, and afterwards becomes bankrupt. Are the Co-Owners liable for the amount of the account? Has there ever been a similar case recorded in Maritime Notes and Queries? If so, when ? -Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER.

Oct. 25, 1876.

[The Co-Owners would be liable for any debts contracted by the Managing Owner within the scope of his Agency. "If persons separately interested in aliquot parts of a ship employ a joint Agent, they are at law liable each for the whole of the debt incurred."-("Passmore v. Bousfield.") The question is also dealt with at page 165, Maritime Notes and Queries, Volume I., and page 64, Volume II.)]

SIR,

CO-OWNERSHIP.

LIABILITY FOR CALLS.

A relative of mine is about to invest 1,000l. in a ship, of which I am to have command. Is he only liable for that amount in the event of the ship sinking money or the Owners failing? Can any call be made on him?-Yours, &c., Aug. 24, 1876. SHIPMASTER.

[A Co-Owner is liable to contribute his share to any losses sustained in the working of the ship, and therefore a call may be made if the expenditure exceeds the receipts.]

INTESTATE CO-OWNER.

SIR,-My husband owned a few shares in a small vessel and died intestate. Must I administer to his estate before I can sell the shares? Is there any limitation of time stipulated in which to do so? He left no other property, except a little household furniture. The Co-Owners contemplate selling the vessel; can they compel me to sell my shares? Feb. 15, 1876. A WIDOW. [Under Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the transmission of the shares would require to be duly authenticated for the purposes of registration of title under the form marked "H" in the schedule to the Act. If a person dies intestate, letters of administration must be produced to the Registrar. Application should be made to the Court of Pro bate within one year of the death of the deceased. The other Co-Owners cannot sell the shares of the intestate without an order from the Court of Admiralty or Chancery.]

REPAIRS ORDERED BY MANAGER. SIR,-A person bought a small share of a vessel, and was appointed Ship's Husband by the minority. He placed the vessel under large repairs, the majority of Owners objecting to it. Are they (the majority) compelled to pay before the vessel earns the cost of repairs ?-Yours, &c., ELAETH. Amlwch, Jan. 13, 1877.

[The appointment of the Manager by the minority is informal; and he, having acted against the orders of the majority, would be liable for the expense of repair.]

SALE OF SHIP AND CO-OWNERS' PROFITS. SIR,-About two years ago I purchased some shares in a new steamer. In the agreement made between the Managing Owner and his Co-Owners it is stated that the profits are to be divided when a certain amount of money (named in the agreement) was in hand. A few months since I sold my shares at a heavy discount to the Managing Owner, and six months had then elapsed since the profits were divided. I have applied for a statement of account and the share of profits due to me at the time of transfer, but the Managing Owner declines to pay me anything, or render me any account. Nothing was said at the time of purchase about the profits then due to me, I of course expecting to receive the same. I now find that a considerable amount beyond that stated in the sailing agreement was in hand when I sold my shares. Am I entitled to and can I claim the share of profits to the date of sale?

AN UNFORTUNATE SHAREHOLDER. Swansea, Nov. 2, 1877.

[In the case of public companies the dividends are paid to those whose names are on the register when the transfer books are closed, and warrants are sent out to those shareholders, whether they have subsequently sold their shares or not. In equity, and according to practice, the share of the undivided profits which had become due should have been paid to our Correspondent at the time of or before the transfer of his interest, and, in our opinion, he is entitled to his proportionate share of the moneys in hand.]

REGISTERED CO-OWNERS.

SIR,-I am the Managing Owner of a vessel, and hold the largest portion. The other shares are owned by several

CO-OWNERSHIP.

CO-OWNERSHIP.

others, some of whom died a few years ago. The widow and a trustee of one of them and the children of others are demanding dividends and settlements. 1 find by the book of Registry of Shipping that there are no changes of Ownership from the original Owners. How am I to act? Is it not the duty of every new Owner to have his name recorded in the book of Registry before he can legally demand any profits or Bettlements? D. J. C.

Aberystwith, Oct. 11, 1877.

[To obtain a Parliamentary title to Ownership of shares, it is necessary that Bills of Sale should be registered; but if an unregistered Owner dies, his executor must apply, under Sec. 97 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, to have his other name placed on the register. The executors of a will (or, in case of intestacy, the party taking out letters of administration) should produce the probate to the Registrar at the Port of Registry, and, on the forms of the Statute being complied with, the newly registered persons would be constituted Owners under the 37th and 58th Sections of the Act. If a female owns the shares, and no protection order or trusteeship has been obtained, and she gets married, the husband has the right to claim to be registered in her stead. -(See Married Women's Property Act, 1870.) The Managing Owner ought not to pay over moneys without proof that the parties are entitled to receive the same.]

MASTER AND CO-OWNERS.

SIR, A, B, and C own a vessel in the following shares :A 32-64ths, and B and C 16-64ths each. B was appointed Managing Owner, but the Master of the vessel persists in paying the vessel's earnings over to A, who orders gear and repairs to be done without consulting the other Owners, and the Master continues to do so, although he has received instructions to the contrary, and A stops payment of all accounts out of her earnings without consulting his partners. Can A get the vessel's papers altered and himself constituted Managing Owner without the consent or knowledge of B, who was so appointed? And, B and C acting together, have they not as much control over the vessel as A? and what steps should be taken to make the Master pay over half the vessel's earnings to B and C without stoppages?—Yours, &c., Portsmouth, March 22, 1877. PART-OWNER.

[As A holds 32-64ths, and B and C the other 32-64ths, if the two latter oppose the former there would be no majority of interests to determine the question of employment of the Master or of the ship. A could not constitute himself as Manager without the sanction of either B or C. If B, who holds 16-64ths, joins A with 32-64ths, they could control the management and remove the Managing Owner. B and C, however, could not do so, although acting together, nor could A singly. The only way short of selling out is to apply to the Court of Admiralty.]

MANAGING OWNER'S LIABILITY. SIR,-Supposing a shareholder of a steamer knows of moneys due to the vessel, which the Managing Owner does not take means to recover, has any individual shareholder the power of insisting on his doing so? L. H. March 10, 1876.

[If a Shareholder or Co-Owner has reason to believe that a Manager is neglecting his duty by not endeavouring to recover moneys owing to the concern, he might give written notice to him, and if there is a Secretary, to him also. In the event of the moneys, which should have been claimed, being lost, the Manager would render himself personally liable to the Co-Owners for the amount if it could be established that blame rested with him.]

MANAGING OWNERS' LIEN. SIR,-Has a Managing Owner a lien upon a vessel for cash advanced to pay wages and necessaries, and for expenses

BROKER AND MANAGING OWNER. SIR,-1st. Is the Managing Owner of a vessel entitled to share in the Commission on a Charter; or, in the event of his receiving it, should the amount be placed at the vessel's credit? 2nd. The Managing Owner's Commission being 2 per cent. on the gross earnings or freight, is he entitled, in the event of a cargo being purchased for ship's account, to charge 2 per cent. Commission on the proceeds of cargo, or SHIPOWNER. on the freight only?

Feb. 24, 1876.

[1st. The Managing Owner, if paid by a Commission, would not be entitled to a return of money from the hirer of the ship and to appropriate it to his own account. Whatever money a Ship's Husband receives from the freigtage of the Ship should be accounted for in the balance-sheet. 2nd. It is no part of the ordinary duty of a Manager to purchase cargoes; and, where there is no special agreement as to remuneration, a liberal Commission should be paid.-(See the Tudor, "Smith v. Lay," Vice-Chancellor's Court, April 22, 1858.)]

[1st. A majority of Co-Owners have the power to remove a Managing Owner; but if that appointment was for a term, and that term has not expired, or notice was to be given, the displaced Manager would be entitled to compensation. A resolution of the majority will be sufficient authority for the cancellation of the appointment. 2nd. A letter appointing a person to a situation of emolument does not require to be stamped; and if the resolution was arrived at by a majority of Co-Owners, the signature of the dissentient Managers would not be necessary to confirm the proceedings.]

CO-OWNERS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.

SIR,-I and a few friends are shareholders in a new sailing ship, the Managers of which, prior to her proceeding on her first voyage, had photographs of her taken, the cost of which was placed to the debit of the ship. As a matter of principle, I object to the Managers charging us with the cost of the photographs. They, however, say they have a discretionary power in expending the money of the shareholders, which I readily grant, but contend that they have no right to expend any money except for the beneficial working of the ship, unless they have the sanction of the shareholders to such expenditure, which in this case was not asked for. It is, of course, to be supposed that each shareholder receives one copy of the photograph; but even so, if the Managers are right in charging the cost to the ship, is it not a manifest injustice that an Owner of 8-64ths pays for 8-64ths of the cost, while an Owner of 1-64th pays only 1-64th of the cost, and still receives the same as the one who pays eight times as much? At all events, it appears so to me, and I shall be glad to know what you think about it ?-Yours, &c., Liverpool, Nov. 27, 1876. A SHAREHOLDER.

[It was no part of the duty of the Managers to charge the Co-Owners with the expense of photographs without having authority to do so. The Managers should have written to the Co-Owners asking them to contribute to the charge; and as they did not do so, they might be debited with the amount, subject to further adjustment, if advisable.]

REGISTERED OWNER'S LIABILITY. SIR,-A few years ago A sold a vessel to B, but the transference was not recorded by B in the Custom-house. The purchaser, B, being a seafaring man, but not having a Master's certificate, employed a qualified person as Master, and took a charter to a foreign Port. In the course of the voyage, the vessel, meeting with an accident, had to be repaired, the bill for which repairs B, as Owner of the vessel, accepted, but failed to meet when due, and consequently the Agent who advanced the money for the repairs caused the vessel to be arrested in a Scotch Port and put up to auction, but no bid having been made sufficient to cover amount duc, she was withdrawn from sale, remaining in the possession of the Agent's lawyer. During this period, while lying at a wharf, the vessel was neglected and much of her gear stolen, insomuch that she has become greatly deteriorated in value. The Agent who made advances for the repairs, failing in being reimbursed by B, now seeks to claim from the original Owner-who was never communicated with about the repairs, nor called upon to provide funds for the purpose on the ground that the sale to B had not been completed. Under these circumstances, can A be held liable for the debt?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER.

London, March 10, 1877.

the

[The Builder who repaired the ship accepted the bill of B, who was the bonâ fide Owner, and could not, therefore, fall back upon A, the Registered Owner, who had parted with his interest in the vessel, and make A liable for the debt.-(See page 33, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

CO-OWNERSHIP.

STORES AND CO-OWNERS.

SIR,-Are the Co-Owners of a vessel legally liable for debt incurred through the Managing Owner ordering stores for the ship, she being, at the time the stores were put on board, at a Port in the United Kingdom, and for which I receive from the Managing Owner a bill drawn as follows:-"Four months after date, pay to my order the sum of 1821. 78. 9d., value received in stores per screw steamer On receiving the acceptance I receipted the account thus:-"Received four months' bill due June 28, 1876." Should this bill be dishonoured, am I able to sue the Co-Owners for the money? Also, if I simply receipt the account without naming the bill, in what position do I stand? A SUBSCRIBER. North Shields, Feb. 28, 1876.

[If our Correspondent pays the bill and the amount exceeds his share, he would have his remedy for the excess against the Co-Owners; but if he has accepted the bill he would be liable to take up the same.]

SHIP'S HUSBAND'S REMUNERATION.

SIR,-I and one or two friends are about building a screw steamer of about 1,500 tons deadweight, and I am to be appointed as Ship's Husband or Managing Owner. What is the usual remuneration to a Ship's Husband, under the circumstances, who is also a Co-Owner, say how much per cent. on gross earnings or on net profits? A SUBSCRIBER. London, March 14, 1876.

[The amount of commission depends upon the trade in which a vessel is employed, and other circumstances, and ranges from one to five per cent. It is a question of agreement among the Part-Owners, and to gain a knowledge of the subject we would advise our Correspondent to peruse the letters on Brokerage and Commission, and on Co-Ownership, in Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.]

SHIP'S HUSBAND'S ACCOUNT.

SIR,-I held 21 shares of a small coasting vessel, and the remaining 43 shares were owned by the Ship's Husband. It was agreed when the ship was built that a statement of the income and expenditure should be given at the end of every six months, which was done for two years; but from 1871 to 1875 I did not see any accounts in connection with the vessel, although I applied several times for them. In September 1875 the vessel was lost. I have now received a statement, bringing me 531. in debt to the ship, which amount the Ship's Husband has kept out of the insurance. The ship had been insured solely in his name. Can he legally do this, and am I responsible, under the circumstances, for the above 531., having been so long in ignorauce of the ship's proceedings? -Yours, &c., JOSEPH WATERS.

Schooner Mary Waters, Brussels, Dec. 21, 1876.

[If the Ship's IIusband has delivered an account of the vessel's earnings and expenditure down to the period of her loss, and the items in the balance-sheet cannot be called in question, he would be entitled to deduct from the sum recovered by him under the policy the sum due by our Correspondent. If, however, there should be any dispute about the charges paid, the Ship's Husband could be compelled by the Court to produce vouchers and go into the whole question.]