LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1602, 20 November 1912, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

' ADMIRALTY COURT. : THE MISHAP TO THE WANGANUI, SALVORS AWAROfeD .£275. Reserved judgment was delivered by the Admiralty Court yesterday in the action claiming salvage in connection with the towing of the disabled barquentinc Wanganui into port at Wellington on September 21 last. Tho President of the Court was tlie Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), and with hiiri, as assessors, were Captain R. J. Gillespie and Captain D. J. Watson. . Tliere were two actions which lind been lieavd together on Thursday and'Friday'of Inst' week. In the first case tho owners, master, and . crew of tho steamship Arapawa proceeded against the ship Wanganui, her cargo and freight to recover tho sum of ,£ISOO for salvage, while in the other case the owners, master, and craw of the steamship Kapiti claimed .£3Ol for services rendered. Mr. E. IC. Kirkcaldie appeared for the claimants in each instance, while Mr. C. B. Morison, Iv.C., with Jfr. W. H. D. Bell, appeared - for the owners of the Wanganui. 'Particulars of the case are familiar to the public, and details of the claim and tho answer thereto .were published in Thf, Dominion on Friday last. In giving judgment yesterday morning, his Honour said:— "I have consulted tl\e assessors, and with their . concurrence, I have come, to the conclusion that wTien the Wanganui was sighted by tho Kapiti and spoken to by her, and when she was taken in tow . by the 'Jrapawa, sh e was 110 t in a dangerous position. She was, however, in more or less of a dangerous condition, and it would have been; wrong of tho master of tho Wanganui to have refused assistance on any ground when assist-' anca was offered by the Arapawa. If. ho had .declined to nvail himself of tlie services of the Arapawa when ottered on the ground, for example, that the. master of the Arapawa would.hot make u bargain as to amount, he .would havo incurred a grave responsibility/and havo ; done wrong. The services rendered by . the Kapiti and the Arapawa were beyond , mere ordinary towage 1 services, though , the services were not what have been called "rescue" services. There was no immediate danger to the vessel or to. the lives ■ of the crew. "In such a case as this reference to decided eases can give little assistance. In , sonio the aid ftivon has been slight and tho sum- awarded handsome; -in others the aid has been onerous and the vessel rescued, and' not a very large sum has been granted. It is impossible from a consideration of the cases to find any absolute Tule. All the surroundings must be considered, and the Court must so net as not to discourage the giving of such services. From What I know of seameji, however, r believe that wherever the saving of human life is coricerncd. they think ] nothing of probable or possible pay "as ' salvors. The assessors think, and I agree, i that. if the-E(!C0 had been accepted, and i say a fourth given to the crews, that would have been a'fair reward for tho 1 services. It is a pity the masters and i seamen were not consulted. and their ad- i vice sought in. tho circumstances. I con-' ; sider this should have been done. i "I am of opinion that, looking at all the circumstances the Court should award ] the sum of .£3OO, without costs, and deduct for .costs to the respondent.'- ' The notice reserved the Tight/ to contest that <£'300 was a '"air stim, and this being so no further deduction .should be ajlow- i ed. The Court is, not asked to declare, what yim should be paid to each vesselr only to declare tho portion that sliduld be .'■ allotted to the crew. I am, of opinioin ■ that ,675 should bo.awarded to the crew, i Tlie "balance, J2OO, must pay the ships : and the. costs the. owners hove been to; in the'action. As to. the distribution of tho i the sum is -iiot'lar^o,.' l tji'e. fair ; , distribution would' 1 begirt my opinion, pro rata according to the wages paid the master and crew." I Judgment was given accordingly. SUPREME COURT. OIL BORING RIGHTS. QUESTION. OF. REVIVAL. Several questions were, submitted to the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday, in an originating summons which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation of a deed of grant , which gave tlie ICotuku Oilfields Syndicate, Ltd., certain - petroleum boring rights. The plaintiffs were Frank Duncan Ilerrick and" Edward .Jasper Herrick, sheepfarmers, of Tautane, Hawkd's Bay; Arthur Desmond Herrick, sheepfarmer, of Opcrae; ' and' Emily Martha Herrick, widow, of 14 Lindfield Gardens, I-lampsteod, London. The defendants werevthe Kohtku ,Oilfields..Syndi-c-ate, Ltd., carrying,on business in New. Zealand and elsewhere as oil-borers. Mr. C'! !?. Skerrett, K.C.y with him Mr. H.. F. O'Leary, appeared -for the plain-., tiffs, while Mr. M. Hannaii, of Greymouth, with him Mr. T. H. G. Lloyd, of Dannevirke, appeared for the company.' ;. From the facts submitted in the summons, it appeared'.that by deed of grant ' dated July It), 1911, the Herricks granted to the- Kotuku, Syndicate certain petroleum boring rights. There,' was a provision for the termination of the grant if boring operations 1 wel'o not commenced within twelve months, and also a provision giving the, syndicate the right of revival'upon: certain conditions, which . included. the payment. of s .£IOO per month in advance frojn August 1, 1912, until it should have delivered upon some part of the^property.the whole of its plant, and started boring operations. In an affidavit by F. D. Herrick, it wasstated that the syndicate, having failed to comply with the conditions of the grant, notice of termination was given on August '2, 1912. The main questions for his Honour to decide: were . whether, the syndicate was really.-entitled to a revival of its rights, and if it. were so entitled, what were tho terms on .which they should .be revived? After hearing argument, his Honour reserved decision. I.N DIVORCE. The Chief Justice • (Sir Robort Stout)dealt with an undefended divorce petition in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Samuel "James Sanson, farmer, of Awahuri, hear Palmerstbn, .prayed for a dissolution of his marriage with Isabel M. V. Sanson. Mr. H. Gifford Moore, of Palmerston North, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for tho guardian ad litem. The tvidence tendered showed that the parties were married on February ■ 21, 1895, and that '■ there were two children of the marriage. On August 21) , 1902, the respondent was committed to a mental hospital,' where ,she was still confined, and where, according to the medical superintendent, 6he was likely to remain for the remainder of her days. His Honour granted a decree, nisi on the usual terms. . .