The Portland daily press., 1884-01-29

the evidence, New York appeared to be the
nome port of the schooner. When these sup
phes we're furnished, the vessel was owned in
massachusetts,, Maine and New Hampshire,
excepting that Loud & Co., of New York own
90 one-sixty-foufth part. The case for the
noeilant was that the schooner was built and
iafeeiy owned in Boston, and had permanent
aeg,ster IN that port; that Boston was painted
so n 4 siern; that they believed and had rea-
avn 70 pelleve that She was a Boston vaseal ana
that in fact she was So The ~
oialihant was that New York was fba bomo
p. vfs OF the vessel, because Loud s. Co. of that
cIty were her managing owners or Ybat ~
NsssH was snch owner, and usually resided n
isoos hetk snd that therefore She shonld baya
peen registered there and that admir-, az
equi0Y, Will held that to have been dona nbint
ouRhb TO have bean done Unon this 49,, ~. -
tao case decision has been given in favrr ~ ~
of,s, iihoeils1esi Inc judge SAID that it has
of'en oesR decided that the place Of residenea
OF the owners is TO be considered tha 49,
pol., even when the registration Is in apotl,ar
olate, II the facts of ownership and res;Senea
ne,o hhowi, or might have been hno,cn ~
aatai.iaI man. 1t has been equally vel
eso"oiasneu tnat the port OF registry is IN =
case OF this kind, pri9r.a fdcse the home mort
W po overcome BY clear proof, before any otba.
hoiue ~ taken as the true one As he tourfS
tno iaces ln TINS case, it would not be w
the
me Jnoge found that Loud & Co., acted ,ners-
~ as brokers' or copsgnees of the vessel ara
helther mad or assumed to have anv 81 fba
lowers OF managing owners The fact that
New Kor c was the headquarters of the vessel
Isss 70 eHect TO make 1t the home port Mr..
Lo,lng was the largest owner the vessel had
unless the master shall be considered so He
agreed with the claimant that il was douhtfnI
whether the master can bs the ships Husband
e OF actlng and managing owner, in The sense Of
S Sn sastuss He however, did not find as
lacs that Capt. Gilkes was such husband ~
acJing aud managing owner The mastar
running the vessel on shares) managed the
voyages OF the vessel as cbarterer and sDeciaI
owner, not as ships husband in the sense of
tne Rtatuse' Judge Ware decided that mer-
chaut who passed most of Lis time in Nav
YORK might be considered as usually residisg
tnere, thought he was domicled in Maine
tIhe ST. Lawrence, 3 w are PLY He dnnhted
the soundDess of this decision: but. while ia
ala not dissent from the decision that bust
ness man may have usn Il residence aoqTt
from his family, he held that a master Of a
vessel Goes not acquire such residence, by
putting INTO foreign port moro OF less often
He held, therefore, under the decisions, that
the schooner was properly registered in Bos--
ton, ana was a foreign vessel in New York
Another question in the case related 10 the
items OF the iibelant's account for premiums
paid for insurance. Uaon this noint the Judge
was OF the opinion that neither the master nor
tne c'almant had authority to charge the ship
with premiums of insurance paid in New York
TO secure the lbellant's account Thers Vas
some difference of opinion whether INSURANCE
duly authorized gives the underwriters a
privilege for the premiums. The better opilion
appeared to be that it did not, because in
suraGce is not a necessary supply for the ship
Itself, but only prudent security for the pro-
pflstary interests OF her owners. He accord
lngly rejected the Items for premiums for in
sursnce. O.. {. 8 G. T. Russell, Jr., for tie
libellant, and G. NJ. Reed for the claiinans