Necessaries. 11. No. 12 (J. A.) (Title.) Statement of Claim. 1. The said vessel was and is a British Colonial vessel belonging to the port of Digby, in Nova Scotia, of which no owner or part owner was at the time of the commencement of this action or is domiciled in England or Wales. 2. At the time of the commencement of this action the said vessel was under arrest of this Court. 3. About the mouth of February, 1868, the said vessel was lying in the port of London, in need of repairs, and of being equipped and supplied with certain other necessaries. 4. By the order of Messrs. K. L., who were duly authorized, the plaintiffs equipped and repaired the said vessel as she needed, and provided the vessel with necessaries, and there is now due to the plaintiffs for such necessary repairing and equipping, and other necessaries, the sum of £305 3s., together with interest thereon from the 19th day of February, 1868. The plaintiffs claim : 1. Judgment for the said sum of £305 3s., with such interest thereon as aforesaid until judgment. 2. The condemuation of the ship and the defendant and his bail therein and in the costs of this suit. 3. Such further relief as the nature of the case requires. (Title.) Statement of Defence. 1. By an instrument of mortgage, in the form and recorded as prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, bearing date the 9th of March, 1867, and executed by U. M., blacksmith, D. F., master mariner, and W. H., farmer, of Weymouth, in the county of Digby, in Nova Scotia, the registered owners of 64-64th parts or shares in the vessel, the said C. M., D. F., and W. H., mortgaged 64-64th parts or shares in the vessel, of which the said D. F. was also master, to G. T. of Nova Scotia, in consideration of the sum of 5000 dollars advanced by him to the said owners, and for the purpose of securing the repayment by them to him of the said sum with interest thereon. 2. By an instrument of transfer, dated the 16th of July, 1868, in the form prescribed by the said Act, and executed by G. T., in consideration of the sum of 5000 dollars to G. T. paid by the defendant, G. T. transferred to the defendant the mortgage security. 3. The said sum of 5000 dollars, with interest thereon, still remains due on the said security. 4. The vessel was not under the arrest of this Court at the time of the commencement of this action. 5. The vessel did not need to be equipped or repaired as in the fourth paragraph of the plaintiff's claim mentioned, and she did not at the time of the supply of the articles referred to in the said fourth paragraph as "necessaries" stand in need of such articles. On the contrary, the said vessel could have gone to sea and proceeded on and prosecuted her voyage without such equipments, repairs, and articles referred to as aforesaid, and such equipments, repairs, and other articles were done and effected and supplied for the purpose of reclassing the said vessel, and not for any other purpose; and the claim of the plaintiffs is not a claim for necessaries within the meaning of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, s. 5. 6. The alleged necessaries were not supplied on the credit of the said vessel, but upon the personal credit of J. B., who was the broker for the vessel, and upon the agreement that the plaintiffs were not to have recourse to the vessel. 7. The defendant did not, nor did G. T., in any way order, authorize, or become liable for, and neither of them is in any way liable in respect of the said alleged supplies or any part thereof, and the said vessel was at the time of the commencement of this action, and she still is, of a less value than the amount which, irrespective of the sums referred to in the next article of this answer, is due to the defendant on the said mortgage security. 8. The defendant, in order to save the vessel from being sold by this Court at the instance of certain of her mariners having liens on the said vessel for their wages, has been compelled to pay the said wages, and he claims, if necessary, to be entitled to stand in the place of such mariners, or to add the amounts so paid by him for wages to the amount secured by the said mortgage, and to have priority in respect thereof over the claim of the plaintiffs. (Title.) 1. The plaintiffs admit that 64-64th shares in the said ship, the Two Ellens, were on or about the 9th day of March, 1867, mortgaged by the said C. M., D. F., and W. H., all of Weymouth, in the county of Digby, Nova Scotia, to the said G. T. 2. Save as aforementioned, all the several averments in the said answer contained are respectively untrue. 3. If there was or is any such instrument of transfer as is mentioned in the second article of the said answer, the same has never been registered according to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. 4. The said G. T. has never been domiciled in or resided in the United Kingdom, and is now resident in Nova Scotia, and the registered owners of the said vessel in the first paragraph of the said defence mentioned were always and are domiciled in Nova Scotia, and resident out of the United Kingdom. Neces saries. (Title.) Rejoinder. The defendant joins issue upon the third and fourth paragraphs of the reply. KK Equipment of ship. 12. No. 19 (J. A.) (Title.) Statement of Claim. 1. The plaintiffs were at the time hereinafter stated and are engineers and ironfounders, carrying on business at Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster. 2. In the month of January, 1872, whilst the above-named steamship Enterprise, belonging to the port of London, was in the port of Liverpool, the plaintiffs, having received orders from the master in that behalf, executed certain necessary work to her and supplied her with certain necessary stores and materials, and caused her to be supplied upon their credit with certain necessary work, labour, materials, and necessaries, and thereby supplied the said ship with necessaries within the meaning of the fifth section of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. 3. There is due to the plaintiffs in respect of such supply of necessaries to the said ship the sum of £577 2s. 6d., and the plaintiffs cannot obtain payment thereof without the assistance of the Court. The plaintiffs claim : 1. Judgment pronouncing for the claim of the plaintiffs: 2. The condemnation of the defendants and their bail therein, with costs: 3. A reference, if necessary, of the claim of the plaintiffs to the registrar, assisted by assessors, to report the amount thereof: 4. Such further relief as the nature of the case requires. (Title.) 1. The defendants deny the allegations contained in the third paragraph of the statement of claim. 2. The defendants admit that the plaintiffs executed certain work to the said ship, and supplied her with certain materials, but they say that a portion of the work so executed was executed badly and insufficiently, and of the materials so supplied, some were bad and insufficient, and a portion of the work in the claim mentioned was done in and about altering and endeavouring to make good such bad and insufficient work and materials. The defendants have paid in respect of the work and materials in the claim mentioned the sum of £356 178. 9d., and the said sum is sufficient to satisfy the claims of the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants deny the allegations contained in the second paragraph of the claim, so far as they relate to any claim beyond the said sum of £356 17s. 9d., and say that if the plaintiffs did execute any work or did supply any materials other than the work and materials mentioned in the second paragraph of this defence, such work was not necessary work, and such materials were not necessary materials within the meaning of the fifth section of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, and were not supplied in such circumstances as to render the defendants liable to pay for the same, (Title.) The plaintiffs join issue upon the defendants' statement of defence. Posses. sion. 13. No. 21 (J. A.) (Title.) Statement of Claim. 1. On or about the 15th of July, 1868, an agreement was entered Possesinto between the plaintiff and J. D., who was then the sole owner sion. of the barque Lady of the Lake, whereby J. D. agreed to sell, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase, 32-64th parts or shares of the vessel for the sum of £500; payment £300 in cash, and the remainder by purchaser's acceptances at three and six months date, and it was thereby agreed that the plaintiff was to be commander of the vessel. 2. The plaintiff accordingly paid to J.D. the sum of £300, and gave him his (the plaintiff's) acceptances at three and six mouths date for the residue of the said purchase-money, and J. D. by bill of sale transferred 32-64th parts or shares in the vessel to the plaintiff, which bill of sale was duly registered on the 18th of July, 1868; the plaintiff has since been and still is the registered owner of such 32-64th shares. 3. The vessel then sailed under the plaintiff's command on a voyage from Sunderland to the Brazils and other ports, and then on a homeward voyage to Liverpool, where she arrived on the 18th of June, 1869, and having there discharged her homeward cargo she sailed thence under the plaintiff's command with a cargo to the Tyne, and thence to Sunderland, at which port she arrived on the 9th of August, 1869. 4. The plaintiff then made several ineffectual applications to J. D., with a view to obtaining another charter for the said vessel, and after she had been lying idle for a considerable time, the plaintiff, on or about the 16th of September, 1869, obtained an advantageous charter for her to proceed to Barcelona with a cargo of coals, and with a view to enabling her to execute such charter, the plaintiff paid the dock dues and moved the vessel into a slipway in order that her bottom might be cleaned, but on or about the 17th of September, whilst the vessel was on the shore adjoining the slipway, the defendant, to whom the said J. D. had in the meantime transferred his 32-64th parts, forcibly took the vessel out of the possession of the plaintiff, and refused and still refuses to allow the plaintiff to take the vessel on her said voyage to Barcelona, and by reason thereof heavy loss is being occasioned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims :— 1. Judgment giving possession of the vessel Lady of the Lake 2. The condemnation of the defendant in costs of suit, and in Possession. all losses and damages occasioned by the defendant to the plaintiff : 3. Such further relief as the nature of the case requires. (Title.) Defence. 1. The defendant says that the acceptances in the second paragraph of the claim mentioned were respectively dishonoured by the plaintiff, and have never yet been paid by him. 2. It was agreed between the plaintiff and J. D., that J. D. should act, and he has since always acted, as ship's husband of the Lady of the Lake. 3. On the 31st of August, 1869, J. D. sold to the defendant for the sum of £400, and by bill of sale duly executed transferred to him, his 32-64th shares, and the bill of sale was duly registered on the 14th of September following. 4. After the Lady of the Lake had arrived at Sunderland, and after the defendant had purchased from J. D. his 32-64th shares of the Lady of the Lake, the defendant placed the vessel in the custody and possession of a shipkeeper. The plaintiff, however, unlawfully removed her from such possession, and thereupon the defendant had the vessel taken into the South Dock of the harbour at Sunderland, with orders that she should be kept there. What the defendant did, as in this article mentioned, he did with the consent and full approval of J. D. 5. At the time of the sale of the Lady of the Lake by J. D. to the defendant as aforementioned, there was and there still is due from the plaintiff, as part owner of the Lady of the Lake, to J. D., as part owner and ship's husband, a sum of money exceeding £300 in respect of the vessel and her voyages, over and above the amount of the unpaid acceptances. 6. Save as herein appears, the averments in the fourth paragraph of the claim contained are untrue, and if the charter-party mentioned in that paragraph was obtained by the plaintiff as alleged, which the defendant does not admit, it was obtained by him without the authority, counsel, or knowledge of J. D. or the defendant. 7. Before the defendant took possession of the vessel as aforementioned, the plaintiff ceased to be master of her with the consent of J. D. or the defendant. 8. J. D. has instituted an action against the said vessel in in order to have the accounts taken between him and the plaintiff, and to enforce payment of the money due from the plaintiff to him. (Title.) 1. The plaintiff says in reply to the first paragraph of the defence that the bills therein mentioned were dishonoured by the plaintiff because J. D. was indebted to the plaintiff in a large amount for his wages as master, and for his share of the earnings of the Lady of the Lake, and refused payment thereof. |