ward until clear of the Graygarth and the Ran; that she failed to ease, stop or reverse in due time or at all, and/or failed to go full ahead on her engines in sufficient time or at all; that she and the Para failed to take any proper or sufficient measures to keep the Para clear of the Ran; and that she and the Para improperly failed to comply with Arts. 19, 21, 27, 28 and 29, and Rules 1 and 11 of the River Mersey Rules.

JUDGMENT.

Mr. Justice HILL, in giving judgment, said: In this case the claim is by the owners of the barge Para and the owners of cargo laden on board her, against the defendants, the owners of the barge Ran, in respect of a collision which happened about 1 p.m. on Oct. 29, 1919, and which resulted in the sinking of the barge Para. There is no counterclaim, no damage having been sustained by the colliding Ran. The collision happened in the River Mersey, off the Alfred Dock entrance, and, as I find upon the evidence, about abreast of the South Knuckle of that entrance, at a distance outwards in the river which is measured by a few hundred feet. Some people take their measurement from the Knuckle and some from the island, but it does not come to more than a few hundred feet outside. The wind at the time was blowing strong from the N.N.E., which was almost right up river; the tide was flood, of a force of about three knots; and it was a fine and clear day.

The Para, a barge nearly 100 ft. long and of 300 tons deadweight, laden, was in tow of the City of Washington, a vessel of about the same size or of a little less deadweight, and there were 10 fathoms of hawser connecting the two vessels. The Ran was a dismasted schooner used as a lighter. She was 145 ft. long and of 550 tons deadweight, and she was in tow of the tug Graygarth, a vessel 85 ft. in length. The Ran was in tow of that tug, together with another dismasted schooner, the Halibut, and the small lighter Ray. The Ran and the Halibut were one on each quarter of the Graygarth, the Ran being on the port quarter. The Ray was astern of those two. The Ran and the Halibut were light, and the Ray was loaded. The Para, in tow of the City of Washington, was leaving the Alfred Dock, bound for the Brunswick Dock on the Liverpool side and further up-river, and she left by the South lock the southernmost lock of the entrance. The Graygarth, with the Run and the other two barges in tow, had come up the river. They were bound for the Alfred Dock, and before they entered that dock it was their intention to turn in the river and get heading down. The ships were in collision, the port bow of the Para and the stem of the Ran.

The plaintiffs' case is that before leaving the dock entrance the City of Washington blew a long warning blast, and proceeded ahead when she was told by the dock authorities that the way was clear; that as she cleared the island she saw the Graygarth with her tows between the Seacombe Ferry Stage and the dock entrance, so that they were to the NorthEastward, and then heading to the Southward; that the City of Washington and the Para came out heading a little North of East, and then ported a little, and got on their up-river course, and about the same time saw that the Graygarth with her tows had begun to round under port helm; that the City of Washington, which, as I have said, had already ported, when she saw the Graygarth and her tows coming towards her-drifting towards her

the City of Washington gave a short blast and harda-ported and increased her speed; but that the Graygarth continued to turn swinging her tows and while the City of Washington succeeded in avoiding the Graygarth, the Para was struck on her port bow by the stem of the Ran, the Para being sunk. The gist of this case is this: The City of Washington, with the Para, coming out of the dock entrance in the proper way, had sounded her warning blast before she left, had come out into the river and was getting across, beginning to port to go up river, and that she would have done it in safety but the Graygarth, beginning her turning, swung one of her tows against the Para.

Now the case told for the defendants is a very different case from this and makes the City of Washington and Para act in a different way. It is that the Graygarth, with her tows, began to turn off the entrance to the dock, but a little further down river, and continued to turn; that the City of Washington and the Para, which had been seen coming clear of the island as they left the dock entrance on a northerly heading, got heading downriver and practically parallel with the Graygarth, which had already got heading north, or a little east of north, with her tows heading somewhat westerly; and that in that position the City of Washington, with the Para astern of her, though she might have proceeded ahead and gone downriver all clear, took upon herself, in the narrow space between herself and the Graygarth, to turn sharply round under port helm from her northerly heading and brought herself on to a southerly heading, and that, though she avoided the Graygarth, she brought the Para into collision with the Ran. The two stories are very different and both cannot be accepted as true stories. They cannot be reconciled.

Now, the first question I have to consider is, which of these stories am I to accept? Did the City of Washington and the Para ever get on a northerly heading or anything like it? If they did not, the defendants' case is not accurate, and it has been made inaccurate for some purpose. I, on this matter, accept the evidence for the plaintiffs. The Elder Brethren agree with me in thinking that it is very difficult to see how a steam barge like the City of Washington, in the narrow space available, which on the defendants' evidence is only 300 ft., could have executed the manoeuvre she is supposed to have done. They say it is very difficult to understand how the City of Washington, having once put herself on the northerly heading which the defendants represent, should, instead of going on with it and keeping quite clear of these other craft-should have set about turning round in that narrow space, even if she could have done it. But apart from the possibilities or probabilities, I prefer on this matter the evidence given for the plaintiffs.

I do so all the more because, in my view, the statement and evidence of the dock gateman on this point entirely support the evidence of the plaintiffs and contradict the evidence for the defendants. It is, to my mind, impossible to think that this witness's evidence means otherwise than that the City of Washington stood across the river and then ported. It is quite inconsistent with the view that the City of Washington and Para starboarded and got themselves on a down-river heading. In fact, I think all the independent evidence on this matter supports the evidence for the plaintiffs rather than that for the defendants, and I accept it. It is not true, therefore, that the City of Washington and the Para got on a down-river heading. Of course, they

came out angling E. by N., having the Waterloo tower a little on the port bow, but substantially theirs was a cross-river heading and it never became a heading which was substantially down-river, and from that time their alteration was under port helm. A good deal has been said about the statement in the Statement of Claim that the Para had a speed of four or five knots.

I find that the statement is not in the Preliminary Act, although the Preliminary Act should have stated the speed. The evidence is that they had come out at a speed of two knots. I find it difficult to believe that they could have come out at a speed of four or five knots, seeing that the City of Washington is only a steam barge and she had the laden Para in tow. But I do not think that it very much matters, because I find as a fact that the City of Washington sounded a long blast before she left dock.

What do we get as the result? The ship which is leaving the dock has sounded a warning blast and has come out in the usual way. The Graygarth, with her tows, is turning off the entrance. According to the Master of the Graygarth, she began to turn within about 100 ft. of the northern entrance and 500 ft. out. With three barges in tow and with the wind blowing strong up the river, in so turning it is highly probable that the tows will come-in fact, must come across the entrance in their swing. Different views have been expressed by different witnesses for the plaintiffs as to whether you ought to turn and get turned on the flood tide before you come up to the entrance of the dock or whether you ought to continue and turn beyond the entrance; but they all agree that you ought not to turn in such a way as to be swinging abreast of the entrance, and the Elder Brethren regard that as sound seamanship.

It is obviously sound if you have heard a warning blast and know that another ship is coming out of the dock entrance, but, even though you have not heard a warning blast, another ship may be coming out. In my view, with regard to a ship which is turning outside the dock and a ship which is coming out of the dock, they each of them owe a duty to one another-the outcoming ship to come out of the dock with due regard to the ship which is in the river and the incoming ship to manœuvre with due regard to the ships in the river and a ship which may be coming out of the dock. It seems to me that whether it is open to you to turn so that you get heading to the tide when you are near the entrance, it must be a very careless thing to so turn that you are still in the act of turning when you are right abreast of the entrance. That is, of course, subject to this qualification. If you are going to turn abreast of the entrance, you should take care that you are turning at such a distance laterally out from the entrance, that your turning in that way will not embarrass a ship that is coming out.

The Graygarth was turning in such a way that she was swinging her tows round towards and close to the entrance, and the other ship coming out found herself necessarily embarrassed by the ships

-a witness from the Ran. I think-spoke of his vessel having stern way, by which he meant, I suppose, a movement over the ground, as she swung. We know that at some time or other the engines of the Graygarth were reduced from full to half speed. although at some other time they were put to full speed again, and it may very well be that this aircumstance accounts for this collision. It may be

that the Graygarth, in turning, has not remembered what a long flotilla it is and how big these so-called barges are she has in tow, and that she has unconsciously reduced her speed and has for the time let the barges get control. If that is the explanation, as the Elder Brethren think it may be, it cannot be wrong for the City of Washington and the Para not to anticipate that the turning will be carried out in that most inefficient manner.

The result is that I can find no fault on the part of the City of Washington or the Para, but I do find fault on the part of the Graygarth, and, therefore, the owners of the Ran being also the owners of the Graygarth, there must be judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants, with costs.

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1920.

A MEDITERRANEAN COLLISION.

OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP "SAINT THOMAS" v. OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP "MONKSHAVEN.” Before Mr. Justice HILL, sitting with Captain A. W. CLARKE, C.B.E., and Captain P. N. LAY ON, C.B.E., R.D., Elder Brethren of Trinity House.

This case involved a claim and counterclaim for damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiffs' steamship Saint Thomas, of Havre, and the defendants' steamship Monkshaven, of Whitby, in the Mediterranean Sea on April 7, 1918.

Mr. A. D. Bateson, K.C., and Mr. R. H. Balloch (instructed by Messrs. Holman, Fenwick & Willan) appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. D. Stephens, K.C., and Mr. G. P. Langton (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Cooper & Co.) represented the defendants.

According to the Statement of Claim, shortly before 8 10 p.m. on April 7, 1918, the Saint Thomas, a screw steamship of 2460 tons gross and 1340 tons net, 288 ft. long and 38 ft. beam, and fitted with engines of 156 h.p.n., was, while on a voyage from Barry Dock to Bizerta, laden with a cargo of coal and pitch, in the Mediterranean Sea, in about lat. 35 deg. 40 min. north and long. 3 deg. 1 min. west. The wind was about W.S.W., a gentle breeze, with a smooth sea; the weather was fine, clear and dark, and there was a current setting to the eastward of a force of about half a knot. The Saint Thomas was proceeding in convoy with a number of other vessels and was the starboard vessel in her line, the Monkshaven being the next vessel to her on her port hand. The Saint Thomas was on a course of south 77 deg. east magnetic, and was making a speed of 8 to 8 knots. The Monkshaven was bearing about 15 deg. forward of her port beam and was distant about 550 yards. In accordance with instructions received, the Saint Thomas carried no lights. Her side lights were lighted and covered over and placed upon the bridge, and her stern light was also lighted and covered over and placed aft ready to be exhibited. A good look-out was being kept.

Thursday, Feb. 12, 1920.

In these circumstances, those on board observed the Monkshaven to be closing in upon the Saint Thomas. The helm of the latter vessel was put hard-a-port and her engines were kept working full speed ahead as the best means of avoiding a collision or of lessening its effects, and one short blast was sounded on her steam whistle. The Monkshaven, continuing to come on, with her stem and starboard bow, struck the port side of the Saint Thomas in the way of the bunkers, doing her considerable damage.

Plaintiffs alleged that a good look-out was not being kept on board the Monkshaven; that that vessel improperly failed to keep her position in the convoy; that her helm was improperly ported and her head was improperly directed to starboard; that she improperly failed to slacken her speed or to stop or reverse her engines; that she improperly failed to indicate by the appropriate signal the course she was taking; that she improperly failed to exhibit her starboard light when there was risk of collision; and that she improperly failed to comply with Arts. 1, 2, 27, 28 and 29 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

The case for the defendants was that shortly before 8 15 p.m. on the day in question, the Monkshaven, a steel screw steamship of 3366 tons gross and 2093 tons net, of the length of 335 ft. and fitted with triple expansion engines of 310 h.p.n., was in the Mediterranean Sea in about latitude 35 deg. 40 min. N. and longitude 3 deg. 13 min. W., bound from Cardiff to Bizerta with a cargo of coals. The weather was fine and clear but dark, and the wind About W.N.W., a moderate breeze. The Monkshaven was sailing in convoy with a large number of other vessels. The convoy was proceeding in close formation, the guide ship being the vessel next on the port side of the Monkshaven which was the leading ship in the next line. The Saint Thomas was Leading in the line next on the starboard side of the Monkshaven. The Monkshaven was keeping her station by the guide ship and was steering S. 80 deg. E. by compass and making the convoy speed of seven knots. She was showing no lights in accordance with instructions. A good look-out was being kept.

In these circumstances, the Saint Thomas was observed to have drawn a little ahead and closer than her proper station and thereupon the helm of the Monkshaven was starboarded a little and then steadied. Shortly afterwards as the Saint Thomas, which had drawn further ahead of her proper station, was seen to be altering with her head to port and closing in rapidly on the Monkshaven, the helm of the latter was put hard-a-starboard, her engines were put full speed astern and her whistle was sounded three short blasts. Notwithstanding these measures the Saint Thomas, very shortly afterwards, with her port side about No. 2 hatch, struck the stem and starboard bow of the Monkshaven causing her considerable damage.

Defendants pleaded that a good look-out was not kept on board the Saint Thomas; that that vessel neglected to keep her proper station in the convoy; that her helm was improperly starboarded and/or her head was improperly allowed to come to port; that she neglected to ease or stop or reverse; that she neglected to indicate her manoeuvres by whistle signal; that she failed to keep her convoy position and to keep clear of the Monkshaven; and that she failed to comply with Arts. 1, 2, 21, 27, 28 and 29 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

Mr. Justice HILL deferred judgment.

Judgment was given in this case to-day.

JUDGMENT.

Mr. Justice HILL, in giving judgment, said: In this case the collision occurred at 8 10 p.m. or 8 15 p.m. on April 7, 1918, in the Mediterranean Sea, on a fine clear but dark night, between the steamship Saint Thomas, of 2460 tons gross and 288 ft. long, and the steamship Monkshaven, of 3366 tons gross and 335 ft. long. Both were laden. The two ships were in a convoy of eight ships, and they were each of them in the first line, which was composed of five ships, there being three ships in the second line. In the first line, in the centre, was the guide ship, the Hyson, on her starboard hand was the Monkshaven, and on the starboard hand of the Monkshaven was the Saint Thomas. According to the evidence of the Master of the Hyson, the prescribed distance apart was 400 yards in the daytime, but there were instructions for closer formation at night; and, apart from those instructions, it is the common experience of this Court that at night ships generally get closer than their convoy distance.

The convoy course was S. 77 E. magnetic. No lights were being exhibited by any of the ships. The convoy speed is variously stated at seven or eight knots. It does not much matter, because it is certain that the ships were proceeding at about the same speed. But, according to the Master of the Hyson, both the Monkshaven and Saint Thomas had dropped a little astern, and it is within the knowledge of the Court that such a thing might have happened at a change of watch.

The two ships were in collision, the port side amidships of the Saint Thomas and the stem and starboard bow of the Monkshaven. Each ship accuses the other of changing her course from her convoy course and throwing herself across the line of the other ship.

The plaintiffs' case is that the Saint Thomas was on the convoy course, with the Monkshaven a little before the beam; that the Monkshaven was seen at a close distance to be coming with her head to starboard, angling towards the Saint Thomas; that the Saint Thomas hard-a-ported and gave a short blast, and the collision followed very soon afterwards.

The defendants' case is that the Monkshaven was on the convoy course, with the Saint Thomas a little before the beam, when the Saint Thomas was seen to be coming to port and drawing nearer; that the helm of the Monkshaven was starboarded a little and steadied, after an alteration of threequarters of a point; and that then, as the Saint Thomas was drawing still closer, angling towards the Monkshaven, the latter's helm was hard-a-starboarded, the engines were put full astern, and three short blasts were sounded.

Both sides say that the angle of the blow was somewhere about four points. At least, that is the plaintiffs' evidence, and it is also the evidence of the Officer in charge of the bridge of the Monkshaven. Each says that she altered some points, the Saint Thomas under hard-a-port helm and the Monkshaven under hard-a-starboard helm. Each therefore makes the other ship alter very considerably to bring about the blow, and that involves

a charge not merely of accidental sheering not corrected, but of some substantial alteration of heading which must be a conscious and intentional alteration of heading in the other ship.

Now, it is highly probable that the distances and alterations and, it may be, the angle of the blow are exaggerated. It is according to experience that on a dark night distances should be exaggerated, and in this case I think they are; and it is very likely that the alterations in the respective helms should be exaggerated.

In ascertaining where the truth lies in this case, the Court is placed in the very greatest difficulty. According to either side, the case turns upon an acute conflict of evidence, and I am invited to believe one side and disbelieve the other, because it is said that there is no ground for a mistake in the cases as presented, and one or other side must be telling that which is not true.

The Court, faced with that conflict, is in this position: Only one witness, the Officer in charge of the Monkshaver, has been examined in Court. All the rest of the evidence is on paper, and I have not had the advantage of seeing or of judging of the demeanour of any of those witnesses. Further, the assistance given by the only independent witness called and his evidence is on paper-does not come to much, if it comes to anything. The Master of the guide ship Hyson was examined, but each side finds in his evidence things which are used as supporting its case. He gives evidence as to his impression of the headings of the two ships at the collision, which the plaintiffs say proves their case. He gives evidence as to the distances of the ships at eight o'clock and at the collision, which the defendants say proves their case. Looking at this evidence and seeing what weight ought to be attached to it, I have to bear this in mind, that the Master of the Hyson observed the ships in the convoy at eight o'clock, and that the next thing he heard that attracted his attention to either of the colliding ships was the crash of the collision, his attention in the interval having been occupied by an Arab dhow which had passed him on the starboard hand, and as to which he was for some time very suspicious as to whether the might not be a disguised submarine.

When he does observe the ships it is after his attention has been called to them by the crash, and his evidence, therefore, as to the angle has to be received bearing in mind two matters, namely that he fixes the angle after the collision, when it can only be a matter of speculation, and that it was a dark night upon which, as the Elder Brethren advise me, it would be difficult to judge the precise headings of the ships at a distance of 200 or 300 yards. Further, I am advised it is very difficult to form any accurate judgment of distances, and it would be very difficult to say whether ships were 600 or 800 yards or more from you at any particular time. Therefore, I think I get no assistance which is a real guide from the evidence of the Master of the Hyson, and I am left with the evidence from the two sides.

Now, at the last it is clear that the Saint Thomas was acting under hard-a-port helm, and that the Monkshaven was acting under hard-a-starboard helm, and reversed engines. It is, I think, clear upon the evidence that these actions were taken when the ships were quite a short distance apart, very much less than their station distance-it may be 100 yards or more than 100 yards, but very close. And for what they did, I am advised, neither of them can be

held to be negligent. I do not know that it is really contended that they were negligent, subject to a question of whistling and possibly of reversing; but I am advised that in the situation in which the Saint Thomas found herself it could not be said to be a fault on her part or bad seamanship that she maintained her speed instead of reversing when she hard-a-ported, and on the other hand, the Monkshaven cannot be blamed for hard-a-starboarding and reversing when she did. Nor do I think that either can be blamed in respect of whistling. The only helm whistle signal given was by the Saint Thomas, and it is said that that was very late, and, on the evidence, it did follow at an interval, but at a very short interval, after the helm was put hard-a-port. But it did not in any way mislead the Monkshaven, nor would the Monkshaven have acted differently if she had heard the whistle a little earlier, because she was already hard-a-starboarding. Nor, on the other hand, do I think that the Monkshaven is to be blamed in respect of whistling. because even if she had given a starboard helm signal, again it would have conveyed no useful information to the Saint Thomas, which was already hard-a-porting.

So that from the time these two ships became aware that they were in close proximity to one another and were called upon to act for one another, I am not prepared to find that either was negligent in what she did or did not do. The question of negligence or no negligence, therefore, depends upon this: How had these two ships got into the position in which they were so close to one another?

The plaintiffs say it was because the Monkshaven had altered her course to starboard. The defendants say it was because the Saint Thomas had altered her course to port. As I have said, I think distances are probably on both sides much exaggerated, and the probabilities are that the ships were much closer together, as they were proceeding in convoy, than either side says. Can I, upon the evidence, find that the plaintiffs have established that the Monkshaven altered her course to starboard, or can I find that the defendants have established that the Saint Thomas altered her course to port? Upon the evidence as it is presented to me, I am unable to arrive at the conclusion that either side has established that case against the other. I think the probabilities are that these two ships had drawn near together in the night partly because in the darkness they were unable to judge their distance as accurately as they would by day, and it may be because the two courses were not precisely identical-that they were in some small degree converging, a matter which might be easily corrected, though perhaps not detected, in daytime, but which in the darkness was neither detected nor corrected.

Therefore I come to the conclusion that the ships did draw into the position in which they were called upon to act for one another, and that they did act for one another, without its having been proved that there was fault on either side.

This conclusion may, I fear, be unsatisfactory to the parties, because they each came here to support a case putting the entire blame upon the other, but if it is unsatisfactory, I regret it is the only conclusion I can arrive at, and the parties must not blame the Court, but the evidence.

I therefore find that neither side has established a case of negligence against the other and the claim and counterclaim must be dismissed. There will be no costs on either side.

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Thursday, Feb. 12, 1920.

SALVAGE CLAIM BY TUG'S CREW.

THE MASTER AND CREW OF STEAM TUG "WILLIAM GRAY" V. OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP "LLANDOVERY CASTLE.”

Before Mr. Justice HILL, sitting with Captain T. GOLDING, C.B.E., and Captain P. N. LAYTON, C.B.E., R.D., Elder Brethren of Trinity House.

In this case the Master and crew of the North Eastern Railway Company's steam tug William Gray, of West Hartlepool, claimed salvage remuneration in respect of services alleged to have been rendered to the steamship Llandovery Castle, belonging to the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Company, Ltd. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs rendered any salvage services to their vessel.

Mr. F. N. R. Laing, K.C., and Mr. Lewis Noad (instructed by Messrs. Pattinson & Brewer) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. R. H. Balloch (instructed by Messrs. Parker, Garrett & Co.) represented the defendants.

According to the Statement of Claim, on Dec. 7, 1916, while stationed at Dover in connection with the Dover Patrol, the William Gray, a tug of 343 tons displacement, received orders to proceed to the assistance of the Llandovery Castle, which was on fire about two miles west of Dover. The tug left Dover at midnight of Dec. 7-8 and proceeded at full speed to the Llandovery Castle, alongside which she made fast. The pumps of the William Gray were at once prepared and the hoses laid ready for instant

use.

Shortly afterwards the William Gray was requested to stand by and remain in attendance in case of need. The tug accordingly kept her pumping apparatus and pipes ready for instant use and remained in close attendance upon the Llandovery Castle until 9 a.m. on Dec. 8, when the vessel was brought safely into the harbour at Dover. The services rendered by the William Gray, said the plaintiffs, were performed at night and were rendered more hazardous by the proximity of a British minefield. The Llandovery Castle had been fired by German prisoners of war, and such prisoners were a continual menace to her safety which the presence of the William Gray helped to avert. The case for the defendants was that the Llandovery Castle, a steel screw steamship of 11,423 tons gross and 7128 tons net, 500 ft. long and 63 ft. beam, was employed by the British Government and was carrying German prisoners of war from Tilbury to Havre.

At 9 15 p.m. on Dec. 6, 1916, while she was at anchor off Folkestone waiting for the tide a fire broke out in No. 4 hold and afterwards spread to No. 5 hold. All precautions were taken and shortly after midnight of Dec. 6-7 the vessel proceeded to

Dover following a patrol-vessel, and anchored off the harbour at 2 a.m. On Dec. 7, at 8 30 a.m., the Llandovery Castle proceeded towards Dover harbour and moored at No. 12 buoy at 10 30 a.m. A salvage steamer then came alongside and the fire was extinguished at 2 30 p.m. on Dec. 7. During the afternoon the water which had been pumped into the hold was pumped out and at 11 10 a.m. on Dec. 8 the Llandovery Castle berthed alongside the Admiralty Pier, and at 3 20 p.m. anchored off No. 12 buoy. At 6 p.m. on Dec. 8 the William Gray was alongside. The alleged services of the William Gray, said the defendants, were of no benefit to the Llandovery Castle. There was no request as alleged in the Statement of Claim or at all. The defendants further relied upon the provisions of Sect. 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, under the terms of which they said the action was out of time. The value of the Llandovery Castle in her damaged condition was agreed at £550,000.

Mr. BALLOCH, for the defendants, took the preliminary objection that the action was not maintainable, as it had not been brought within two years of the date of the alleged cause of action.

Mr. LAING, for the plaintiffs, explained that no action had been brought by the tug owners, the North Eastern Railway Company, the plaintiffs being the Master and crew of the William Gray. From the time the services were rendered in December, 1916, to the time of the action being brought, the plaintiffs were in continuous service on board the tug under the Crown. Another reason for their not bringing an action before was that they were naturally expecting the tug owners to institute proceedings. Being on constant duty in the Dover Patrol, the men themselves had no opportunity of taking any action and before two years had expired after the cause of action arose, Llandovery Castle, while acting as a hospital ship, was torpedoed and sunk.

the

Mr. BALLOCH pointed out that the action was an action in personam which did not involve arresting the ship, and, therefore, such an action could have been brought well within the two years provided for in Sect. 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. Furthermore, the Court had never been asked to Counsel extend the time for bringing the action. also argued that the plaintiffs had established no case entitling them to be awarded salvage. The hearing was adjourned.

Friday, Feb. 13, 1920.

The hearing of this case was continued.

Mr. LAING, in further argument, pointed out that but for the fact that the Llandovery Castle had been lost, and the res had thus disappeared, the plaintiffs would have had their remedy in rem, because the vessel could not have been arrested until quite recently, she being in Government service. Therefore, he submitted, the plaintiffs ought not to be placed in a worse position by reason of the fact that the ship had been lost.

Mr. Justice HILL reserved judgment.