VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4276, 3 December 1874, Page 2

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

Wednesday, December 2. (Before His Honor Mr. Deputy Judge Johnston.) THE SIHATHNAVER SALVAGE CASE. Mr. Gordon Allan and Mr. Izard appeared for the salvors, the captain and owners of the s.s. Stormbird ; Mr. Travers for the captain, owners, and consignees of the ship Strathnaver. His Honor, upon the opening of the Court, requested the learned counsel engaged to assist him in forming an opinion as to whether upon the claim for salvage as made out in the libel, and upon the evidence given in support of that claim, he would he precluded from pronouncing a decree in favor of the salvors for towage services instead of salvage services. Mr. Allan contended that although the libel set out facts which amounted to a claim for salvage, there was a general prayer at the end for compensation for services rendered. The defendants admitted in their answer that there were services rendered, but that they were simply towage services. The question, therefore, was whether the services were salvage services or towage services. If His Honor were of opinion that they were simply towage services, then the salvors were entitled to a decree for such sum as the Court should consider sufficient compensation for those services. In support of his contention, Mr. Allan cited the cases of the Princess Alice, 3 Robinson’s Reports ; the Batavia ease, Spinks’s Admiralty Reports ; the Medora case, Spinks’s Admiralty Reports ; and the Reward case, Robinson’s Reports ; all of which went to show that in the claim for salvage there had been a plea that the services were simply towage services, and that the Court having taken the facts into consideration, found accordingly. In all these cases the Court found that the services rendered were towage services, and that the sum tendered as compensation was sufficient, thereby showing that the Court could consider upon a claim for salvage the question of towage. Ml". Travers drew attention to the distinction between the cases cited and the one before the Court. All the cases referred to were cases in which the services were services rendered independent of a contract. fclu the present case there was a contract for pure towage, entirely independent of any salvage claim whatever. His Honor said, that as at present informed, there was no proof of such a contract. Mr. Travers said, that would be a matter for comment. In the case of the True Blue (2 Robinson’s Reports), it was laid down that where the parties entered into a binding agreement, and a verbal agreement in these cases was quite as binding as a written one, the Court would not entertain a suit framed upon any other basis. His Honor: Suppose the Court should be of opinion that there was not a contract for salvage services, but that there were towage services, and that there was evidence of the value of that towage, am I not at libertyto decree for towage ? Mr. Travers said that if His Honor was.of opinion that there was no contract he was not prepared to say that the Court had not power to issue a decree for towage ; but he wonld submit that where a claim was made for salvage pure and simple, the parties were bound by it. There must be salvage or no salvage. His Honor said he was anxious upon the point, because it was the key to the costs. Mr. Allan and Mr. Izard then argued upon the facts, reviewing the evidence at length, and pointing out to the Court the salient features bearing upon the salvors’ case, Mr. Allen contending that his clients were entitled to the judgment of the Court, as the services rendered by the Stormbird were more than mere towage . services, as there was abundant evidence to show that the ship was in danger. His Honor intimated that he would inform Mr. Travers in the morning whether it would be necessary for him to address the Court, and if not he would at once deliver judgment.