Star.
London, England, 1818-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, JANUARY 21.
Nothing occurred to-day in this Court of aay ma-
terial interest, except to the parties immediately con-
cerned in them.
COURT or KING'S BENCH, SERJEANTS INN,
JANUARY 21.

The Court was occupied the whole of the day in
the discussion of questions of no interest whatever,
except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JANUARY 21.

The Court was occupied for nearly the whole of
the day in considering the remainder of the special
cases ; but nothing occurred of any interest, except
to the parties.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, JANUARY 21.
THE SIR WILLIAM CONOREVE, COPE., MASTER.
Dr. DODSON, in this case, appeared as Counsel for
W. Tregear, late Mate of the above vessel, in a suit
for wages; the sum which he demanded being 61.
81. 6d. as balance of the account due to him for a
service in that capacity from the 12th of Aust,
1816, to the 18th of April, 1817, at the rate orfoguur
pounds ten shillings per month. The Learned Coun-
sel submitted, that this demand was sufficiently esta-
blished by the testimony of the two witnesses exa-
mined, which was in no manner whatsoever contro-
yelled, the owners not having ventured even to ex-
hibit interrogatories in the way of cross-examination.
'Dr. ADAMS tendered to the Court the affidavit of
a Mr. Gilbee, and prayed the conclusion of the cause
to be rescinded, in order to afford time for informa-
tion from the Master of the ship, now absent on a'
voyage from this country.
The depositions of the two witnesses being read, it
appeared that they had been seamen on board this
vessel ; that they were hired about the beginning of
November, 1816, when they found the ship with a
cargo of cotton and other merchandize on board,
lying in the River, bound for Amsterdam. Tregear
was then on board as Mate, and sailed as such
Amsterdam, where the outward cargo was delivered,
and after some little hesitation, owing to a question
which arose respectir.g some cotton which was thrown
'overboard to lighten the vessel in a tempest, a re-
turn cargo was laden, and brought to London, in
the beginning of March. Here the two witnesses
quitted the vessel, but one of them saw Tregear on
board, acting as Mate, and superintending the dis-
charge of part of the cargo, se late as the 18th of
March. The Proctor for the owners had been as-
signed to bring in the mariner's contract, but this
document not being produced, it did not appear
when the Mate was hired, or at what rate. One of
the witnesses, however, swore that the usual wages
of a Mate on such a voyage were from 3/. 101. to 51.
the other from 41. 101. to 51.

.•
• From the affidavit of Mr. Gilbeei appeared_ _ that
on the 6th of May the ship and her Master hadboo ,
been arrested in this cause ; that the vessel was then
lying off Woolwich with a cargo of stores on bOartl,
having been hired by Government as a transpsiri.—.-,
.The Master informed Mr. Giliee; who becanse,bail
-in the action, that Tregear had been fullypit! all
that was due to him, and thatlidpresent claim was
for more than he was entitled to. • Bail was there-
fore given to the action, and the ship, on the 9th of
May, proceeded upon her voyage with the Master
on board, since which time there had been no oppor-
tunity of communicating with, or receiving informa-1
tion from him.

On this statement, the Counsel for the Mate sub-
mitted that the evidence was quite sufficient ; that
no one fact alleged in the summary petition had been
contradicted ; that it was the duty of the owners to
have produced the ship's articles, and they not hay-
ing done this, it muse be taken that the articles were
conformable to what was alleged on the part of the
Mate ; that though from the want of this document
there was no specific proof of the rate of wages, yet
the depositions of the two seamen shewed that the
rate alleged was a reasonable and probable one; that
as to the time of service, as the outward cargo was
on board when the witnesses came, and the return
cargo was also on board when they last saw the ves-
sel, it was to be presumed that the Mate had been,
on board much longer, since it was his peculiar pro-
vince to see the cargo received and delivered.—
Lastly, he contended that the affidavit set forth no,
facts whatever to ground the present application on
the part of 'the owners for delay, inasmuch as it
shewed that the Master was perfectly aware-of the
nature and extent of the claim set up by the Mate,
three days before the vessel sailed; and that in the
course of those three days he had abundant time to
have produced the necessary documents, or to have
indicated the witnesses on whom he relied to disprove
the demand.

The adverse Counsel replied, that the ship had
been arrested at a critical period, when she was just
about to sail in Government service, and when the
Mastefwas occupied in more important business than
this trifling demand of 61. Bs. 6d. that the Court
would not encourage such a vexatious proceeding,
but would at least look strictly into the proof in sup-
port of a demand made under such circumstances.
That in the present case there was no proof either of
the time of hiring, the rate of wages, or the duration
of service; that the summary petition stated the
vessel to be lying at Woolwich suaitiagfor a freight,
at the period of the alleged hiring ; that it was not
very probable that a Mate would be hired to attend
for a long time on an empty ship, either before re-
ceiving the outward cargo or after the delivery of
the return one. That even supposing the rate of
wages to be as alleged, it was clear that the Mate
had been paid for between six and seven months' ser-
vice, whereas there was nb proof before the Court
of so much as five months' service ; that, therefore,
if the Court were to decide only on the present evi-
' dente, it must reject the sailor's claim ; but that the.
owners did not wish to resist the demand if it was
,really a just one, but were willing to let the matter
stand over till, by the return of the Master from his
present voyage, the Court might be fully instructed
as to the real facts of the case.
The Court (Sir WILLIAM Sooty) observed, that
the warrant having been served on the Master on
the 6th of May, anti bail not given till the 9th, the
Master had had ample opportunity. to afford his
owners all the requisite information. The• Proctor in
the early stages of the cause had been assigned to
bring in the mariner's contract; bu-. this assignation

had never been complied• with, nor any netts* of•
tired for not doinlecu•-:-4,-Misters of ships," said the
Judge, must know that they are bound, under he
Act of Parliament and the constant practice of this
Court, to bring in their ship's aiticlos in all cases of
wages; and if they do not bring them In, the Court
must take it strongly against them that the contract
is as laid in the, seaman's petition. I must therefore
consider that the rate of wages here claimed is proved,
because it is not disproved by the party who had the
means of disproving it if inaccurate. The affidavit
of the Master's bail only states, in a loose way, that
the Master had declared that the Mate's demand was
for more than was due; but it, does not shew on what
ground less was due. Was it because the service
was shorter, or because the rate of wages was less,
or both ? All this is left in the dark ; and yet if the
Master did not inform his owners on these points,
there must have been very great neglect, both on Lis
part and on theirs. The matter must not be wrapped
up in this obscurity. As to the rate of wages, it is
laid within the limits which the witnesses prove to
be an ordinary rate ; -and there is no sort of canna-
diction given to them, and no assertion by any body
that this Mate was not hired on the terms on which
he asserts in his petition that he was. As little con •
tradiction is there with respect to the time of service.
The evidence first speaks of the cargo as on board,
in the beginning of November, and it must be pre-
sumed that it was received on board by the Mate,
who is the confidential person always entrusted with
that very office. In like manner, the witnesses, when
they quit the vessel, leave this person performing the
duty of Mate; and there is no assertion any where
titat he did not serve out the whole time. I consider
iii4laim to be proved, as strongly as presumption
can prove it, by the silence of ale- opposite part).
The indirect proof' supplies the want of affirmative
evidence, and I have no doubt or difficulty in pro-
mouncing for the suages claimed, and of course uith
the casts of the proceeding."