FREIGHT.

JETTISON OF DECKLOAD.

SIR,-A vessel arrived here with a cargo of deals &c., with deckload of deals and boards. The ship meeting with bad weather, a portion of the deckload was washed overboard, and the Master also thought it prudent to throw a little of it over to ease the ship. The vessel arrived at her destination, and the master noted and extended protest. Must the ship pay for the lost portion of the deckload besides losing freight thereon?-Yours, &c., AN INQUIRER.

Nevin, July 5, 1876.

[If there was an established usage in the trade to carry deck cargo, and the Charter provided for the same, or the Policy included the words, "in and over all," the voluntary sacrifice would fall on General Average. The question as regards voluntary and involuntary sacrifice is fully treated at pages 36, 37, 43, 78, 110, 136, 137, 145, and 196 Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.; pages 2, 3, 22, 57, and 165, Vol. II.; and pages 28, 30, and 51, Vol. III.)]

ROSIN CARGO.

SIR, After perusing the Charter-party and Bills of Lading inclosed for your inspection, will you inform me whether Ï may fairly claim of the Receivers of the cargo freight on the weight of rosin landed over and above the weight stated on Bills of Lading? The Receivers decline to pay on this excess weight, on the ground that rosin invariably turns out considerably in excess of invoiced weight, and that it would, by absorbing the evaporated turpentine, increase in weight on the passage. The latter portion of the cargo is admittedly landed in remarkably good order, with the exception of two barrels of which the hoops had burst, and the contents of course were lost.-Yours, &c., S. J. HARRIS. Bristol, Dec. 29, 1875.

[The Charter-party stipulates that-"The Bills of Lading are to be signed without prejudice to the Charter, and to pay 68. British sterling per barrel of 40 gallons gross gauge of barrels for spirits of turpentine, and 4s. per barrel of 310 lbs. gross weight for rosin, in cash on proper discharge." The Bills of Lading make the number of barrels of rosin to be 2,157, weighing 697,215 lbs., and freight (at Charter-party rate) is to be paid "for the said shipment." The freight is not expressly stipulated, as in the Bills of Lading, to be paid on delivery, or by Bill of Lading weight. The weight of the rosin when landed is stated to be 712,721 lbs., or 15,506 lbs. in excess of the weight given in the Bills of Lading. It is a question, therefore, as to the correct weighing on shipment and discharge, and the absorption of moisture by the rosin. This involves the point as to where the turpentine was stowed, and the absorbing power of rosin. As a matter of opinion, we should say that rosin closely packed in barrels could not absorb so much turpentine vapour as to increase its weight by 6 tons 18 cwt. 3 qrs. 26 lbs., even if the 500 casks of turpentine on board the ship were not strongly made and bound. It is an established rule that if the Bill of Lading quantity is to govern the payment of freight, swelling of grain, or increased weight from natural causes, is not paid for. In our Correspondent's case, however, the only Bill of Lading condition is that the freight shall be paid at Bristol. If the correct number of barrels has been delivered, we would advise a claim being made for extra freight, and that would settle all matters of fact.]

STEAM COMPANY REFUSING TO CARRY. SIR,-I am in the habit of shipping by steamers running between the Continent and this Port. A short time ago my goods were refused to be taken on board owing to the fact of my Agent having shipped other goods by an opposition line just started. The steamer belongs to a Company duly incorporated by Act of Parliament, advertising regular days of

GENERAL AVERAGE.

departure, showing a fixed rate of freight. Are they not public carriers, and are they not legally compelled to take goods offered to them when able to carry them? An answer will greatly oblige. A MERCHANT.

London, May 25, 1876.

[A Shipowner is not bound to carry goods unless he contracts to do so; and he is not compelled to receive cargo for conveyance unless made liable by agreement. With respect to a Joint Stock Company the case would be the same, provided the Articles of Association or Deed of Incorporation did not bind them to convey for all upon equal terms, or to receive cargo when the vessel's holds were not full, and the ship loaded to a safe and seaworthy extent.]

TALLOW AND BARLEY BY BALTIC SCALE. SIR,-A steamer loaded barley in a Black Sea Port for the United Kingdom, freight at the rate of 42s. 6d. per ton tallow," according to the London and Baltic printed rates." What is the equivalent rate per quarter payable here, and CLIO. how do you arrive at the same?-Yours, &c.,

Leith, Dec. 21, 1876.

[By the printed comparative scale in the "London Baltic Rates," when tallow is 42s. 6d. per ton, barley is 5 7:03. By the "Baltic and Archangel rates of Freight," tallow is twothirds the freight of hemp, 97 imperial quarters of wheat are equal to 10 tons of hemp, and barley is 15 per cent. less than wheat. Hemp is the standard. By the "Black Sea Rates of Freight," when tallow is 42s. 6d. per ton, it is 15 per cent. less, or 5 7-036 per quarter.]

WAITING FOR PAYMENT.

SIR,-On the 24th ult. I signed a Charter at Llanelly to load coals there for Portsmouth, one condition being-the freight to be paid in cash on the safe delivery of the cargo on certificate of production of true delivery. I got my Bill of Lading indorsed, and posted it to the Receiver of the cargo on the 20th inst., but there was no one here to pay the freight. On the 22nd he wrote to my Broker here, but instead of enclosing freight, he states that he has laid the account before his Principals. On the 26th, and again on the 27th, I wired him, but got no reply until 3 P.M. yesterday, when a letter came enclosing a cheque on a Swansea Bank, on which, of course, I have to pay a small commission, in addition to having to pay commission on cash advanced to me to pay wages &c. due on delivery of cargo. On the 27th he writes: "The Shippers promised me faithfully to let me have cheque yesterday, and I am still without it. So that you may not be detained I enclose you my own cheque." What redress have I for so gross a breach of the condition in Charter quoted above? Masters of vessels are often deceived when loading for H.M. dockyards, and they think they are in good hands, but the Officers know nothing about paying freight, and vessels are frequently delayed two or three days waiting for settlement. A delay of full eight days, however, is intolerable.-Yours, &c.,

W. BEDWELL, Master of the brigantine Portsmouth, June 29, 1876. Volunteer, of Padstow.

[The Charterer is liable for all detention caused by his nonfulfilment of the contract and if he withheld payment for an unreasonable time after receiving the certificate of delivery.]

GENERAL AVERAGE.

ADJUSTMENT.

General Average, as adjusted by an English or a foreign statement, leaves room for litigation; but as regards the place of adjustment, and the relative contributions, the law is approaching a recognised settlement. It is the custom of Underwriters to insert the clause-"General Average payable according to foreign statement, if so made up ;" and it has

GENERAL AVERAGE.

been argued that the evidence of this practice clearly proves that where there is no agreement of that character the adjustment must be made in accordance with British principles-that is to say, if a voyage is broken up, and a statement drawn out in a foreign Port, the law of the State where the Average is adjusted must not govern, but only the law of the country to which the ship may belong. We have insisted that, with or without the special clause as to foreign statement, the adjustment should, if practicab'e, take effect where the ship and cargo part company. In the case of "LORING v. The Neptune Insurance Company," the Supreme Judicial Court of the United States held that the Insurers of 350 boxes of sugar were liable for a General Average as adjusted at a foreign Port of destination, although there had been no agreement that the settlement should be so made. (See report in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, August 17, 1838.) In "FLETCHER v. ALEXANDER," Common Pleas, May 1868, the Court held that, where a voyage terminates, either by completion or by being broken up, there is the proper place for the adjustment. The Underwriters, also, in "Dent v. The Marine Insurance Company," Queen's Bench, April 1869, were held liable to pay Salvage charges imposed by a Russian tribunal, although it was shown that the adjustment was contrary to English practice. Where there is no special clause, said Mr. Justice BRETT, in "HARRIS v. SCARAMANGA," Common Pleas, June 1872, Underwriters are liable for General Average, if made according to the law of the country where the settlement between the Owner of the ship and the cargo takes place. This method of settlement has been disputed, but the number of decisions given in favour of the adjustments being made in conformity with the laws of the States where voyages have been terminated ought by this time to create an incontrovertible custom. Any Underwriter who does not desire to be bound by foreign Average statements may provide for the English law by a clause stipulating for the same in the Policy. It is open to the terms of contract, but, when not specially provided for, we are of opinion that the law of the State wherein the voyage ends must determine the question. There are some curious points, however, respecting Average payments, even where the law of a country does not recognise a payment as coming within the general adjustment. In HARRIS's case, above quoted, wherein the expenses at a Port of refuge had been met by a Bottomry Bond, and the ship and freight at the Port of destination were insufficient to pay the loan, the deficit was made good out of the cargo, contrary to the law of Bremen, where the settlement took place. The Adjusters made up the statement, and as the Policy contained the clause to pay as per foreign statement, the Underwriters, said Chief Justice BOVILL, were liable to pay whatever the Owners of the insured goods were called upon to contribute. In our impression of the 24th instant will be found another case bearing on the subject, and which was finally decided on appeal by the Court of Session, Edinburgh. A Policy set forth that the General Average was to be payable according to foreign state. ment, if so made up. The insurance was on pig iron valued at 8351. The ship had to run for a Port of refuge, where repairs were executed, and, when ready for sea, was bottomried for 7001. To meet this the Shipowner was called upon to contribute the sum of

GENERAL AVERAGE.

6291. 8s., and the Cargo-owner 2381. 19s., the iron having been carried to its destination. The Shipowner and Master not being in a condition to pay the amount of the bond when due, the Consignees of the cargo paid it. The Consignees then recovered, under an order of Court, 3007. by the sale of the ship, but this money was forestalled by wages and other preferential expenses. The liability of the parties had next to be regulated by the general German Commercial Law, which provides that all parties shall contribute. The iron, for the purposes of Average, was valued at 1,2937., and the second statement made the contribution 7201. 4s. This was the loss sustained by the Owners of the cargo, and they sued the Underwriters under the Policy to recover the same. The Lord Ordinary held that the Insurers undertook to pay the proportion of the amount imposed on the Insured, as the Average loss payable for the subject of insurance as ascertained and fixed by foreign adjustment, and not merely the proportion of the amonat which, by calculation might be found as the Shippi value, as distinguished from the Contributory value, and therefore the Underwriters were, said his Lordship, liable to make good the amount contributed. The pursuers claimed to pay on the value of the iron as declared in the Policy, and not on a higher sum as settled by Average Adjusters in a foreign Port. The full Court, however, affirmed the judgment of the Judge in the Court below. This decision in the Scottish Court agrees with the judgment in " HARRIS v. SCARAMANGA," for, as Chief Justice BoVILL ruled, "we have only to see whether the foreign adjustment "which gives rise to the claim has been in fact made or not." The Underwriters on the one side, and the Insured on the other, agree to be bound by foreign Statement of Average without any reservation whatever, and the consequence is that a declared value and a value on the goods insured differ. The Court says: "We have nothing to do with the: 3 discrepancies. You contract to abide by a foreign adjustment, and if the Average Staters make the goods of more value than that fixed under the Policy, you must pay the percentage on the higher "valuation." It will be gathered from this short summary of the law as regards settlements at home or abroad, that Average Adjusters are not altogether compelled to take the value of goods for insurance as the value for Average contribution. The Policy does not bind the Adjuster in making the settlement, There is a divergence in the laws of Maritime States as regards General Average, and in 1860 the International Congress met under the presidency of Lord BROUGHAM, at Glasgow, to draw up rules of conformance; in 1864 Sir JAMES WILDE took the chair at York at a similar meeting. As Underwriters, on goods insured by them, undertake to indemnify the Iusurers from loss, and the sacrifice is settled by Average, it becomes important that there should be only one law for the universal government of adjustment.-July 28, 1876.

66

66

66

GENERAL AVERAGE.

In our impression of the 24th ult. a case is reported which may, for a time, settle the question of General Average with respect to cargo sacrificed during a voyage in order to keep a donkey engine in operation to work the pumps. The question before the Court,

GENERAL AVERAGE.

though not altogether novel, was an undecided one in a certain sense, because it referred to an auxiliary engine on board a sailing ship which had been adapted for pumping purposes.-(See the John Baring— "ROBINSON V. PRICE," Queen's Bench Division.) The ship was chartered to convey a cargo of timber from Quebec to London, and, encountering bad weather, the coals carried for generating steam became exhausted, and after using up the spare spars, some of the timber constituting the cargo had to be burnt in the furnace to keep up the steam, so that the pumps should be continued in constant action. On reference to the Arbitrator, he decided that the peril was imminent, and that the measures taken were indispensable for the preservation of the vessel and the cargo, and that, in accordance with this ruling, the sacritice should be treated as General Average. The Court, however, held that, where there was an auxiliary power for pumping, the Shipowner was bound to have a sufficient supply of fuel on board for the purpose; and though the quantity should be governed by the nature of the voyage, the season of the year, the condition of the ship, and whatever experience had shown to be prudent, it did not follow that coal should be carried for every emergency. There was a reservation in the decision bearing upon the point of what should be taken for an ordinary voyage, as compared with a provision for long detention by gales and head winds. It was a question, therefore, of quantity, and was not distinguishable from the usual practice of allowing such losses, in Average, in the case of steam ships, when incurred for the benefit of all interests. If the ship had not been provided with steam power, it is possible she might have been lost, and her Crew and cargo also. Had she been fitted with the common hand pumps, the men would have soon got exhausted, and then her abandonment must have followed. A ship may have coal enough on board for cooking purposes, cabin fires, and for generating steam, but a retarded passage might so reduce the stock as to leave very little on an emergency for the pumps. If the ship had been lost through not having steam at command, the Underwriters would Iave been liable; and it was not argued that a ship thould, by stipulations in the policy, be fitted with steam pumps. Even though a vessel has mechanical power available, it is possible the pumps may likewise be capable of being worked by hand; and as regards Average, if the pumps were of a proper size and in good order, and a portion of the cargo was not sacriced to save the ship, an action under a policy might be disputed on the ground that the means of rescuing the whole adventure was within reach, but that the Master of the vessel did not avail himself of the means of salvation at the moment of peril. The Court, having heard the arguments for and against the sacrifice of the timber being treated as a General Average loss, came to the conclusion that the danger was imminent, and that the Master was justified, as the agent of all parties, in taking such steps as were within reach for the safety of all. From the fact of all the coal having been consumed, and the ship's spars likewise, there was prima facie evidence of the sacrifice having been necessitated by the exigencies of the voyage, and judgment was given for the Shipowner. When steamers run short of coal owing to extraordinary delays, and cargo, spare spars, bulwarks, planking, or stores have to be brought into requ si

GENERAL AVERAGE.

tion to feed the boilers, the sacrifice is adjusted in General Average, unless the vessel started without a sufficient supply for an ordinary voyage. In "SHAND v. Asп" (Common Pleas, Feb. 17, 1872) it was held, in confirmation of the rule mentioned, that there was no obligation cast upon the steamer to have more than a reasonable and ordinary supply of fuel on board, having regard to the character of the voyage and of the weather that might be expected. We have said, however, that the donkey engine question has been an unsettled one. In "HARRISON v. The Bank of Australia" (the Champion of the Sens), the Judges were divided in opinion, and so no decision was given. The merits of the case were very similar to those of the John Baring. Both were sailing vessels, and from leakage the pumps had to be continued in constant work and the coals had become exhausted. Chief Buron KELLY and Baron BRAMWELL held that the sacrifice of the cargo was recoverable as General Average, but Brons MARTIN and CLEASBY were of a contrary opinion. Whether the principle has been finally established by the recent action of "ROBINSON v. PRICE "it would be imprudent to say in the face of such litigation as we have had in the Superior Courts during the last three or four years. The judgment of the Queen's Bench ought to govern all Average Staters in their adjustments. The law is quite clear as we understand the adjustment of contributions. A claim for General Average, said Chief Justice WILDE in "HALLETT v. WIGRAM," arises when part of a cargo or of a ship is destroyed in order to rescue the remainder from some impending peril. "If during a voyage [he said], by stress of "weather or otherwise, a vessel is in immediate "danger of being lost, and part of the cargo is "thrown overboard, or a mast is cut away, as a means "of preventing the total loss of the ship and cargo, "that loss, being incurred for the common benefit of "all concerned, shall not be sustained by the Owner "of the ship alone, but by a general contribution "from all." It is-must always be- -a fine drawn distinction as to what coal should be put on board a vessel for the use of a donkey engine, and what may be considered reasonably sufficient. If a Shipowner had to carry coal for several weeks' consumption, he had better convert his sailing ship into a steamer. The steam engine is an extra power, and no attempt should be made to contract its application. The automatic pump of THIERS is maintained by the motion of the ship, is independent of manual labour and the wind, and dispenses with the use of steam. If such questions as those we have herein described and commented upon are likely to occupy the Courts, the roll of the ship should be utilised to sustain the action of pumping, assisted likewise, if deemed advisable, by the less reliable windmill pumps, and then there could be no dispute as to what should be the right quantity of coal to be furnished for long or short voyages; and the Judges would not consequently be called upon to pronounce for or against Shipowners or Underwriters under policies.-December 1, 1876.

ADJUSTMENT.

SIR, I have the following clause in a Charter-party of a ship recently discharged at a Continental Port under General Average:"All questions of General Average to be settled according to the custom of the London Underwriters at Lloyd's." My London Average Stater having informed me

GENERAL AVERAGE.

that the "custom of the London Underwriters at Lloyd's," and, indeed, the law of this and all Maritime nations, require General Average to be adjusted at and according to the usage of the Port of destination or discharge, and that this printed clause (though unnecessary) merely confirmed it, I presented to my Merchant a statement prepared by a professional Average Stater at the Port of discharge, which reimbursed me several charges that would not have been allowed if the ship had discharged in England; but the Merchant refused to pay me, alleging that the clause means that the statement must be prepared in London, and such charges only allowed As would be by an English Average Stater.-Yours, etc., London, May 2, 1877. STREONSHALH.

[The custom of the Underwriters at Lloyd's is governed by the law of adjustment. There is no special custom of Lloyd's distinct from the general custom. The cargo having been discharged at a Continental Port, the law in force there would be binding on all parties, in the absence of any agreement as to the adoption of the law as prevailing in London. Chief Justice Abbott, in "Simonds v. White," 1822, said:"The cargo might belong, partly to British subjects, partly to foreigners: were there to be as many different adjustments as nationalities? There must be one rule for all; and that which was known, and could be administered on the spot, was clearly the most convenient." "Scaif v. Tobin" showed that the Master of a ship should never part with his lien on the cargo until the Average is settled, or security given for its payment.-(See page 129, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.) The special clause inserted in policies is thus worded :-" In case of any lawful claim arising on this policy, it is agreed that the same shall be settled by the Company's Agents at that place. . . . and that the settlement thereof be made in conformity with the laws and customs of England." This would hold good as between the Underwriters and the Assured; but in a question of Average on cargo, the Shipowner, not being a party to the insurance clause quoted above, would not, therefore, be bound by it.]

ADJUSTMENT.

SIR, A Mutual Ship Insurance Company refuse to pay under an Average Statement. The vessel got ashore on the 4th of January, 1877, at Lisbon, and the Insurance Company having no Agent at that Port, the Secretary sent instructions to the Captain to repair the ship temporarily and come home to finish, and the ship arrived in England safely. The Insurance Company sent a Surveyor to survey the ship, and he reported that there were charges in the bill for things that were not on board or laid out on the ship. The Captain had signed all the bills, and certified that the things were on board. The Owners had to pay all bills before they could get the vessel released at Lisbon. Are the Owners entitled to have full payment of Average Statement? Amlwch, Sept. 7, 1877.

A SHIPOWNER.

[If the vessel was stranded, and the Insurance Company admitted their liability, and gave the order for or sanctioned the work to be done, they would be liable to pay all the expenses incurred, but would be entitled to proof of the bills submitted to the Average Stater having been actually incurred for repairs. If our Correspondent takes proceedings to recover the amount due under the Policy, it would be necessary to produce the receipted bills and give evidence of their being paid.]

BRITISH OR FOREIGN ADJUSTMENT. SIR,-An arrangement was made in November last for a Norwegian vessel to load a cargo of oats for England in Konigsberg, and on completion of lading, the Captain signed a Bill of Lading (in English), and insurance on cargo was effected in Prussia. Some time after sailing the vessel met with mishaps, and was taken into Stavanger, in Norway, in

GENERAL AVERAGE.

distress, and was compelled to discharge a portion of her cargo; consequently, the vessel comes under an Average. The question that arises is this:-Can the Receivers of the cargo here be compelled to pay cargo's proportion of Average under a Norwegian adjustment (a language they do not understand), or can they (the Receivers) demand an Average statement prepared in this country-say London-by any duly qualified Average Adjuster, the latter course they being quite willing to accept ?-Yours, &c., SHIPBROKER.

Rochester, Feb. 17, 1877.

[The Norwegian statement would be binding in the absence of any express stipulation that the adjustment should be drawn up in England.]

COLONIAL ADJUSTMENT OF AVERAGE. SIR,-With regard to the clause-"to pay General Average per foreign statement if so made up," and referring to Chief Justice Bovill's judgment in "Harris v. Scaramanga," would Underwriters on a policy containing the above clause be bound by a statement prepared in a Colonial Port of destination, although the apportionment be partly according to local usage and on somewhat different principles from those usually followed in England-in other words, can an English Colonial Port be considered, as regards matters of General Average, as a foreign Port? I observe that in the case of the Barbara (4 C. Rob.), Jersey was considered as a foreign Port for the purpose of sustaining a Bottomry Bond, and that the Ports of Ireland, prior to the union, were also so held for a like purpose, there being a question as to how far such rule is affected by the Act of Union.-(The Rhodamanthe, 1 Dodson, 201.)-Yours, &c., ASSURANCE.

London, Sept. 1, 1876.

[The meaning of adjustment according to English practice would not apply to a British Possession abroad. A Colonial Port would be deemed to be a foreign Port for the purpose of making up an Average statement. "The adjustment of a General Average at the Port of discharge, according to the law prevailing there, is binding upon the Shipowner and the Merchant, as they must be taken to have assented to adjustment being made at the usual and proper place, and, as a consequence, according to the law of that place"-(“Lloyd v. Guibert"). For Customs purposes a colony is a foreign Port, and it would be so for the adjustment of Average at the Port of destination.]

AVERAGE ON CARGO OF WRONGDOING SHIP.

SIR,-In the act of bringing up in the Downs, my vessel drove foul of a ship at anchor, receiving damage, and she was towed into an adjacent Port. My vessel was to blame, and, for the benefit of all parties, I admitted my liability so as to compromise with the Owners of the vessel with which my vessel had collided. My vessel was laden with a cargo of coals, and, for the benefit of all concerned, an arrangement was made by which the coal was sold at the Port where it was discharged for the repairs of the vessel, the Underwriters upon the coal agreeing to the price upon my returning the freight advanced, and undertaking to pay their proportion of the Average. On presenting my Average statement, I am told that, in consequence of my having admitted my liability for the collision, all losses incurred will fall upon me; and the Underwriters, upon this ground alone, decline to pay the cargo's proportion of the Average. What is my position in the matter? The Underwriters on the ship have settled their claim.-Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER.

Cardiff, July 19, 1876.

[The cargo could not be made to contribute in Average for the wrongdoing of the ship; and therefore, the Underwrite s on the cargo would be exonerated from contributing under an ordinary Policy in which collisions are not provided for, and even then there is a question as the damage to the two vessels or their cargoes.]

AVERAGE ON DAMAGED CARGO. SIR,-A vessel bound to Southampton with a cargo of coals (insured) got aground in the neighbourhood of that Port, and several tons of coals were taken out to float her off, and they were sent on to Southampton in lighters. A survey was held on the coals thus delivered, and they were reported damaged by breakage to the extent of 5s. per ton. Should this deterioration of 5s. per ton be paid by the Owner of the vessel or settled by General or Particular Average?-Yours, &c. Shoreham, Nov. 3, 1876. INQUIRER.

[The ship is not liable. The lighterage and charges, with depreciation of cargo, must be settled by Average adjustment. A ship that is stranded is always in danger, and the service performed in getting her afloat is a Salvage operation.-(The Shannon.) Transhipment is a Salvage service, and Salvage gives a claim for General Average. The expense of lightening a vessel to save the ship and the cargo on board is General Average, for it is a service performed to benefit all interests. The ship is rescued, the freight is earned, and the cargo is saved. There was one undertaking in favour of all concerned. The cargo was not out of danger until the vessel was floated. "If a cargo requires assistance to remove it to a place of safety, the service is one of Salvage.”—(Dr. Lushington in the Westminster.) Where an expense is incurred to float a stranded ship, and to save the property as a whole, it is treated as General Average. When the cargo is not in danger, and is warehoused, the cost of floating the empty ship is one of Particular Average.]

SALE OF CARGO FOR AVERAGE. SIR,-When a vessel under Average puts into a harbour of refuge, where the cargo has to be discharged, is the Owner by English law compelled to bring the cargo forward when the vessel is not condemned, although it can be clearly proved that the value of the cargo in its damaged state, either at the harbour of refuge or if brought forward to the Port of destination, would be sufficient to cover the amount which, in accordance with the Average statement, falls upon it, not to say anything about this amount plus the freight? Under these circumstances, can the Master sell the cargo by auction at the harbour of refuge, and apply the proceeds towards covering the amount due by the cargo as per Average statement?-Yours, &c., SUBSCRIBERS. London, Aug. 29, 1876.

[If the ship can be repaired so as to bring home the cargo, it would be the duty of the Master to convey it to its destination, unless it is perishable. The Master would not be justified in selling the cargo in a harbour of refuge for Average charges. A Master would be entitled to sell at an intermediate Port when a cargo is in a perishable state, and the only alternative is a sale or the total loss of so much of the cargo as is in a decaying condition.-(The "Gratitudine." "Vlierboom v. Chapman"; "Blythe v. Smith"; and page 55, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

AVERAGE ON WRECK CUT AWAY. SIR,-While beating up the Bristol Channel with unper and lower foretopsails set, the yards were carried away while in stays, the ship then having the Nash Point bearing east five miles. The vessel in a great measure became unmanage able, and, in order to clear away the wreck, had to cut away the topsails and gear attached. Afterwards I came to in Morte Bay for 36 hours, when I took a tug in order to get the ship into safety up Channel, the weather still continuing very boisterous, and while towing up the hawser parted. Would the loss sustained by cutting away the topsails and the towage up to safety, with loss of hawser, come into General Average; or would the whole have to be borne by the Owners of the ship?-Yours, &c., Gloucester, Nov. 17, 1876.

SHARE SAILOR.

[By the custom of Adjusters, the sacrifice would have to be borne by the ship alone as Particular Average; but see letters at pages 51 and 133, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.]

AVERAGE AND FORWARDING CHARGES.

SIR, I was Master of a vessel which last winter loaded at New Orleans, for a Port in France, a cargo of cotton and staves. By accident my ship was struck by a floating wreck in the Gulf Stream, and got very leaky. I had to put into a Port of Refuge, where the ship was discharged, and the cargo forwarded to a larger place, and better adapted for business (on the command of Surveyors and Insurance Agents). The cotton was sent by rail and the staves by steamer. When the cargo arrived there a part of it was condemned (by Surveyors) and ordered to be sold for the benefit of all concerned. When the ship was discharged a survey was held, and the ship was condemned and sold. I had to wait a long time in that Port to get the cargo reshipped, but I at length secured and chartered a vessel, and she brought the cargo to its place of destination. I then went there, but had to wait a considerable time to get all the papers translated and in order. 1. Can the freight on the cotton which was forwarded by rail fall on General Average, but the staves, which were forwarded by steamer to the place of reshipment, which was cheapest, fall only on the freight? 2. Is no pro rata freight due on the cotton so sold? 3. Are the Stevedore's expenses of the new chartered ship to fall on the Owner of the lost ship, who had already paid once for loading the same cargo?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER.

Havre, Sept. 18, 1876.

[1st. If a vessel strikes on a wreck at sea, and has to run for a Port to save her from foundering, the expenses of entering, pumping, and discharging the cargo, in order to repair the ship, fall on General Average. The expenses of transhipment vary according to the law of the country where the Average is adjusted. The expenses of transhipment and forwarding by rail and steamer are, by English law, recoverable from Underwriters on Freight.-(See "Failure of Voyage