212. The following do not contribute to General Average

(1.) Ship's provisions, bunker coals, and other engineroom stores, as well as ship's military stores.

(2.) Master's and crew's wages.

(3.) The clothes and travelling requisites belonging to persons on board and whatever they have about them.

If such objects as are mentioned in No. 3 have been sacrificed or damaged by a General Average act the owner nevertheless participates in the distribution to the amount allowed for them in the Average adjustment.

See Art. 190 (1), ante.

G. 725, H. 731, I. 648, P. 639, §2, S. 856.

213. The adjustment and apportionment of General Average takes place at the port where ship and cargo separate, and in conformity with the laws of the country where such separation takes place. In this country the adjustment is made by sworn Average-staters. * If any dispute arises concerning the correctness of the statement, the questions at issue have to be referred to the decision of the Court.

G. 729, H. 711, 722, 723, 725, I. 658, P. 650-652, S. 846.

214. It is the master's duty as soon as possible to see that the requisite steps are taken to have the Average adjusted, and every person concerned is bound to provide the Average-stater with all such information and documents as he may consider necessary.†

G. 730, 731, H. 724, I. 657, 658, P. 652, S. 851, 852.

* The Swedish version provides for a local custom not to settle at the actual port but in a larger one in the neighbourhood, and the last sentence as to judicial proceedings is omitted, being covered by the general laws, and see Arts. 326, 329, post.

+ The Swedish version contains the following provisions in addition, and makes provision for any interested party having the Average adjusted if the Captain

215. If goods are entered in the Average statement as lost, and such goods are afterwards recovered, or if any damage has been entered therein which afterwards has been made good by the person causing the damage, the Average statement has to be amended by a supplementary statement. The drawing up of the Average statement must not, however, be retarded by a prospect that may exist of recovering the objects sacrificed or obtaining compensation for the damage.

G. 722, H. 739, 740, I. 653, P. 646, S. 863.

216. The liability of the owner of goods subject to a General Average contribution is limited to the goods themselves, and is not personal.

See Arts. 268 (3), 274 (2).

G. 727, 728, H. 738, I. 671 (6), 673 (4), 675 (8), S. 867, 868, 951.

217. A ship under liability for General Average contribution must not leave the port where ship and cargo separate, and goods liable to such contribution must not be given up to their owners before such contribution has

fails to do so:-"It shall be the duty of the Adjuster, whenever a request for an adjustment of Average is made, to summon as soon as possible, by a notice inserted in the Official Gazette and in a local paper, all persons, who claim to participate in the Average, to state in writing, within a certain prescribed time, what evidence they propose to adduce in support of their claim, and to send in to him any documents to which they wish to refer. If any of the documents delivered are found incomplete the Adjuster should, as soon as possible, request the respective party to furnish the necessary information. When the time prescribed in the notice expires, or, if no complete documents have been delivered in by the time appointed, then when they are all delivered, it shall be the duty of the Adjuster to have the Average statement drawn up in duplicate within two months, and on a day of which notice must be given, posted up in the Town Court, and advertised in the Official Gazette and in one of the Local Papers; the said statement must be endorsed with a notice indicating the time, within which any person, dissatisfied with the adjustment, can have the case brought before the Courts in order to preserve his right of action. Of the two copies one shall be delivered to the person who has requested the adjustment, the other shall be kept by the Adjuster for exhibition to the other persons interested in the Average."

been paid, or, if the amount has not been fixed, security has been given for it.

G. 732, 733, I. 659, 675 (8), P. 653, S. 867, 868, 951.

218. All damage sustained by either ship or cargo and all expenses subsequently incurred which have been caused and rendered necessary by an accident not classified as General Average, are classed as Particular Average, to be borne by the object or objects which sustained the damages, or for whose account the expenses were incurred, as laid down in Art. 161.

If expenses which are classed as Particular Average were incurred at the same time and without distinction, for the benefit of ship and cargo collectively, or for several parts of the cargo, such expenses have to be divided in an equitable proportion between the values, for whose benefit they were employed and distributed over them, as far as possible in conformity with the rules laid down for General Average distribution. Expenses incurred by salvage of the cargo have to be borne proportionately by the cargo and the freight of the goods saved. Anyone interested in such Average may claim to have the adjustment and distribution made by a regular Average-stater.

G. 703, I. 643.

F. W. RAIKES.

III.-DR. TRISTRAM ON REMARRIAGE OF DIVORCED PERSONS.

AT

Ta sitting of the Consistory Court, held on May 3rd, in the Wellington Chapel, St. Paul's, London, Dr. Tristram, Chancellor of the Diocese of London, made a statement in reference to his recent action in granting a certain marriage licence. It will be remembered that Mr. Theodore Brinckman, son of Sir Theodore Brinckman, Bart., had obtained a licence for his marriage with Miss Linton, the stepdaughter of Lord Aylesford, at St. Mark's Church, North Audley Street, and that upon the circumstances becoming known certain members of the English Church Union decided that an attempt should be made to stop the ceremony. The ground for this action was based, it is alleged, upon the fact that in July, 1894, Mrs. Brinckman filed a petition for divorce against her husband, which he did not defend, and the Divorce Court granted a decree nisi, which was not made absolute until January of the present year. Shortly afterwards the engagement of the respondent to Miss Linton was made public, and forthwith a number of well-known Churchmen petitioned the Bishop of London to stop the wedding being held in a consecrated church. To that petition and subsequent appeals the Bishop of London declined to reply. At the ceremony, which was considerably interrupted, Father Black read a formal protest, embodying the reasons upon which the marriage was objected to.

Dr. Tristram, the Chancellor of the Diocese of London, now explained the circumstances under which he had acted in this and similar cases. He said :

“On April 23rd, an application was made to me, sitting as Judge in Chambers, by Mr. Brinckman, who had been a respondent in a divorce case, to order a licence to issue for the celebration of his marriage in St. Mark's Church, North

Audley Street. Upon his producing a certified copy of the decree dissolving his previous marriage, and upon his satisfying me upon oath that there was no legal impediment to the marriage under the decree or otherwise, and upon his naming the Rev. Dr. Ker Gray as a clergyman willing to officiate at the marriage, I ordered the licence to issue for its celebration by him in the church named, being of opinion that by law I was bound to grant the licence. In consequence of the protest made during its celebration, and an impression abroad that the Bishop of London was in some way responsible for the issue of the licence, I feel it to be my duty to state in Court the grounds upon which these licences have been granted by me, as Chancellor of London, for the last 22 years, without any attempts having been made to question my right and duty to do so by appeal or by moving for a prohibition. The question of my right and duty to do so was raised and abandoned in May, 1873, in 'Ex parte Mayne.' In that case an application was made, as I find on referring to my notes, for a licence for the celebration of the marriage of a guilty party in a divorce suit. Previously to the application, the late Bishop of London had lodged in the registry 'an order directing that in future no licence for the marriage of divorced persons should issue.' I was informed of this by the proctor who applied for the licence, and who intimated to me that he should contend that the order was ultra vires, and that if I held that it was binding on me, as Chancellor, he should contest its validity by mandamus. I communicated with the Bishop, who informed me that similar orders had been issued by several of the bishops, and that his wish was that such directions should be enforced, provided he was entitled by law to make the order. After much research and consideration, I came to the conclusion that the order was ultra vires, and that I was bound by law to grant the licence. The English Church Union, by their proctor,