VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4225, 5 October 1874, Page 3

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

Saturday, October 3. (Before A. J. Johnston, Esq., Deputy Judge.) The Vice-Admiralty Court was formally opened at 11 a.m. on Saturday, pursuant to notice, the business on the notice paper being a preliminary proceeding in the action by the master and owners <jf the s.s. Stormbird against the master and owners of the ship Strathnaver, the cargo lately contained therein, and the freight thereof, for salvage services rendered. This was the first time that any business has been brought before the Court at "Wellington, although it is formally opened at regular intervals; and judging from Saturday's proceedings, the sooner its practice is assimilated to that of the ordinary tribunals the better.

Upon the arresf of the ship and cargo by the salvors, the consignees of cargo, in number about thirty, in order to obtain their goods, gave bail to the full value of the same, with freight added, entering at the same time an " appearance " in a book kept by the DeputyKegistrjir for that purpose. Some of the consignees, content with obtaining their goods, there let the matter rest, but others anxious to guard themsslves have, by what is termed an "assignation," called upon the salvors to bring in their " libel" (corresponding to a " declaration" in an ordinary suit) within a specified number of days, and as the Admiralty rules prescribe that the libel shall be brought in before the Court, a sitting day had to be appointed and gazetted. Mr. Allan, instructed by Mr. Izard, appeared as advocate for the salvors ; Mr. Travers for the master and owners and certain consignees, and Mr. Moorhouse for other consignees. Mr. Allan brought in the " libel," which, being unopposed, was duly admitted. He then entered into a somewhat intricate and lengthy discussion with His Honor respecting the proper form of procedure, during which he treated the master, owners, and consignees as all parties to the proceeding, upon which the other counsel remarked that there were thirty different appearances entered, so there would have to be as many separate "libels." Mr. Allan adhered to his argument, and claimed that the actions should be consolidated. Mr. Travers protested against such a course at some length, maintaining that the Court had no power to make any such order; that as the various parties had appeared separately and by different proctors, and had taken out separate assignations, so each must be treated separately. He, moreover, alleged that in some cases no libel had been delivered, and pointed out the absurdity of the doctrine that the bringing in of the libel on the present occasion could in any way affect such parties on whom it had not been served, Mr, Allan denied that any of the pa'ties who had appeared had not been served and pressed for an order of consolidation. His Honor, however, refused to grant this, at the same time observing that he was very anxious that suitors in this, as in other Courts, should be put to as little expense as possible, and that costs should :i.ot be multiplied. Mr. Allan pointed out that this would be exactly tho

effect of the consignees proceeding separately ; but His Honor Btated that he must be bound by the rules of the Court, which simply prescribed that the libel having been brought in, a time should be assigned for its proof, and requested counsel to ax>ply for some day to be fixed. The following Friday was at first suggested; but, on it being shown that it might be inconvenient, as several days woidd probably be required to examine all the witnesses, an extension of time was decided upon. Mr. Allan then called attention to the rule which gave power to extract a decree for an answer from the opposite side. His Honor said the Court had nothing to do with that; nothing more than to fix the time within which such answer should be delivered.

Mr. Allan : Then I will extract a decree against the opposite party. ■ Mi-. Travers : I should like it to be thoroughly understood which case is now going on ; is it against the master or against which of the consignees ? Mr. Allan: I will extract a decree.

His Honor : The Court must be bound by its rules, and it seems to me to be no part of my duty, at this stage at all events, to instruct you as to the terms of any decree which you may think fit to extract. After considerable discussion, which only served to show the almost inextricable confusion into which it was possible for each proctor to plunge his clients, or by inaction permit them to be involved, the extreme danger attendant upon each step in the case, and upon the omission of any necessary step, His Honor observed that they were all groping in the dark, and must limit themselves strictly to the wording of the rules. The practice in the High Court of Admiralty might be, and no doubt was, simple enough, for that Court was in session de die in diem; _ but here it was otherwise, and he was of opinion that it would be highly dangerous to depart from the exact letter of. the rules ; which opinion was fortified by a letter he had received from the Chief Justice respecting the serious inconveniences and doubts which had arisen in the Auckland Court. The practice had, however, been altered by Statute during the late session of the Imperial Parliament, but there seemed a likelihood that it would be some time before any definite rules were arrived at in New Zealand; therefore, all that seemed possible was to grope on from step to step, carefully limiting themselves to the procedure laid down by the rules. After arranging for a decree for answers within six days after service, the Court formally adjourned until Tuesday, 13th inst., at 10 a.m.