Star.
London, England, 1822-01-31 00:00:00

ADMIRALTY COURT, JANUARY 30.

THE BEE, ON THE PETITION Or ROTH PROCTORS.
Dr. ADAMS stated, that this was a question of dues
payable to Pilots, under the denomination of allow-
ance per diem, whilst under quarantine, turning upon
the construction of the 52d Geo. 111. c. 39, sec. 42,
which recites, " that for any vessels arriving at Stan-
gate Creek, which shall be detained by the proper
Authorities, for the purpose of performing quaran-
tine, the Pilot shall be allowed Bs. per diem for the
days he shall be so detained or remain under quaran-
tine." The question now submitted to the Court was,
M hether, by the construction of the Act of Parlia-
31ent, the allowance of Bs. per day included the day
of entry and the day of departure? The Corpora-
tion of Cinque Fort Pilots, a large body of indus-
trious individuals, were interested in the present ques-
tion ; and although the matter in dispute was for the
paltry sum of 16s. it became a question of importance,
between that body and the still more numerous body
of Ship-owners, whether the present denrand ought
or ought not to be paid. This dispute, which had of,
lase proved of frequent recurrence, wakeimply upon
the difference of two days' pay, which waPekmanded
on the part of the Pilot, and resisted by the owners.
The affidavits of five experienced Pilots were read,
setting forth the general custom and usage to receive
payment (in addition to the allowance of pilotage) of
Bs. per day fot every day's detention whilstrevtining ,
under quarantine, including the day of entering and
the day of departure. The affidavits further vet forth,
that such dues were invariably paid by King's ships.'
Learned Advocate proceeded to argue, that
this allowance was by way of demurrage; and, being
paid by the day, could have no reference to the esta-
blished allowance for pilotage, which was according
to the draft of water and the distance, and not regu-
lated by time. The service of pilotage was paid for
the same, whether the time was short or long. Now,
when a vessel arrived at Stangatc Creek, she had no
further occasion for a Pilot ; but; as the policy of the
law required that all persons on board a vessel per-
forming quarantine should be restrained from quit-
ting her, although, by this detention, the Pilot was
put to considerable inconvenience, he cannot be re-
leased. Suppose a vessel going into quarantine late
in the eveni:ig of a particular day, she remains the
whole of the nest day, and takes her departure on the
morning of the third day. Here there was a period
of three days Lad elapsed, for which the Pilot, in-
stead of receiving £l.4s. was to be paid only Bs. and
if a ship went into quarantine on one night, and took
her departure the next morning, here were two days,
for which the Pilot would receive nothing, unless
there was one whole day's_ detention. In titis case,
the vessel entered Stangate Creek on the sth of De-
cember, a-nd took her departure from thence on the
Bth ; and the question was, whether the Pilot was to
be paid for two days or four—that is, for the sth,
6th, 7th, and Bth? If there was to be found any
clause in the Act of Parliament which set forth that
the Pilot, having an allowance of Bs. per diem, was
not entitled to be paid for all and every day he was
so detained, the question was new, and did not seem
to have been decided. He submitted, that as the
Bs. per diem was allowed by the Act of Parliament,
it must be meant to estend to every day on which
the Pilot was detained.

The documentary evidence produced,went to chew
the custom and usage which had prevailed, and he
trusted this would go a great way to establish the right
of the Pilots to be paid for the days inclusive.
On the other hand affidavits were opposed to those'
on the part of the owners, that they did not believe'
it was the custom so to pay ; but that they had reason
to believe they were entitled to be paid only for such
whole days as the vessel was actually detained ; but
they did not set forth any instat,_e in which they had
resisted payment, only that they believed it was not
the general custom to pay.
The owners of the Bee further set forth the bye-
laws of the Trinity Pilots, which regulated and re-
stricted them from being paid for any other than the
days actually detained after the day of entering, and
only until the time of departure; but the Learned
Doctor contended, the bye-laws of the Trinity Pilots
had nothing to do with those of the Cinque Ports, for
there was an express stipulation in the Act of Parlia-
ment, that the Trinity Pih)Ls had nothing to do with
the Cinque Ports.

Dr. DODSON followed on the same side. The ques-
tion here was important, in order that it should be
finally settled. The question arose upon two Acts of
Parliament, the 42d and 52d Geo. 111. He appre-
hended it was quite clear the law did not recognize
any fractional part of a day being deducted. Both
parties in this case contended that no fractional part
of a day was to be paid for. It was important for
the Court to decide what composition, should be
made, and whether the payment was to commence
on the day of entering quarantine, or the day after;
and whether it tetminated the day before, or on the
day of departure. The Act of the 42d Geo. 111.
which allowed 7s. per diem, and the use of the ship's
stores to the Pilot, during such detention, he con-
tended was superseded by the Act of the 52d same
reign. The Learned Counsel trusted the Court
would come to the decision that the Pilot was enti-
tled to be paid for the whole of each day on which
he was detained.

Lord STOWELL asked whether any evidence was
given as to the practice from the Trinity-house?
Dr.JitNNEft said, application had been made to the
Trinity-house, but they declined making any affidavit;
and perhaps the Court would not receive the certificate
of the Secretary.

Dr. Donsori apprehended, although the Trinity-
house was authorised to make bye-laws for their own
Pilots, they had not any power over those of the
Cinque Ports. If this vessel, instead of coming in
late on the evening of the sth, had come in on the
morning of the Gth, and gone ont at eight o'Llock on
the night of the Bth, there would have been no time
lost, and no dispute.
1)r. JENNER, fur the owners, argued against his
Learned Friends; who contended that, both accord-
ing to policy and practice, the Pilots ought to be
paid inclusively•for the day of entrance and the day
of departure, because here were forty-eight hours
consumed instead of twenty-four. He admitted, that'
certainly the law did not contemplate the fractional
Fart of a day, and on neither hand was a fractional
part of a day allowed to be paid for. He referred

to a schedule of the Rates of Pilotage from the Tri-
nity-House, which regulated, that for vessels draw-
ing 12 feet water, the Pilot is entitled to two guineas
for hoarding her, and nine guineas from the Downs
to Stangate, or if he proceeded direct to Gravesend.
Novo, after his departure from Gravesend, he com-
menced a new employment, by piloting the vessel
to London, for which he is paid 41. 16s. and which
employment Commenced the moment of his depar-
ture. Was h reasonable he should be paid for being
actually employed in piloting the vessel. and at one
and the same time paid for interruption or delay?
Now it was obvious, if he were paid for the compo-
nent part of a dav, or taking a whole from a com-
ponent part (for if he was engaged in piloting the ves-
-1 sel in on the day of entrance, and on the day of de-
parture, which it must be taken he was), in the gene-
ral payment for pilotage, to pay him for detention,
would be an accumulation of payment, and thus he
would be paid twice. The time he was engaged in
piloting the vessel in or out, could not be said to in-
fringe on his time at all ; then why should he he
paid for that part of the two days in addition to the
pilotage, which was all the remuneration for time to
which he was entitled, he that time long or short?
The rule established by the Trinity-honse must be taken
as the rule on which the Court was bound to decide.

Dr. Lustitawrobt followed on the same side, and
cosended, it would be manifest injustice in this
Court to depart from the rule of payment as regu-
lated by the Ttinity-House, whose mature judgmer.t
and accurate caledlation on the subject must be
taken to be more deliberate, and experienced, than
the practical judgment of this Court. if the Court,
gave more than Bs. per day, exclusive of the day ot
entrance, and the day of departure, now sought to
be recovered, then it was most certain the Court
would be giving double pay.. The Learned Advocate'
continued to enforce his argument by the strongest
and most forcible deductions.

Lord Srownt, directed the question to stand over,
in order to require a certificate or attendance of the
Trinity Masters, to know what the rule of practice
was ; when the Court would pronounce a decision on
the next Court-day.