R. & H. G., contracted with the T. Line, owners of a certain steamship, to transport the steamship from their dry dock to her berth in the dock of a docks company, the vessel until moored at the berth to be at the risk of the ship repairers. An order was given to the docks company (no tugs but theirs being allowed to bring a vessel into the docks) to supply tugs to assist in transporting the steamship from the entrance of the docks to her berth. The order (called a towage ticket, and being the docks company's printed form filled up) stated that the charge was payable by R. & H. G., but was signed "H. Barnes," he being the marine superintendent of the T. Line. The towage ticket provided that the masters and crews of the tugs should cease to be under the control of the docks company in connection with the transport of the vessel, and should become subject to the control of the master or person in charge of the vessel and should be the servants of the owners thereof, who undertook to indemnify the docks company against any injury to any vessel of any other person occasioned by any neglect of such masters or crews. Two tugs were supplied by the docks company under the towage ticket, and brought the steamship close to her berth, where she was moored fast stem and stern, and she had only to haul back a few feet by her winches to get into her berth, which she could not yet do owing to barges lying astern. In these circumstances, in order to remove one of these barges, the harbour master of the docks company ordered a man from each of the tugs to cast off certain other barges, and this was done negligently, causing damage to one of the barges. In an action, in which the owners of the barge and her cargo were plaintiffs and the docks company were defendants, the defendants admitted liability, but brought in the T. Line as third parties, claiming indemnity from them under the towage ticket against the plaintiffs' claim :-Held, that the third parties were not liable to indemnify the defendants-first, because the contract of towage contained in the towage ticket was a contract with R. and H. G., and not with the third parties; and secondly, because at the time of the negligent act the contract contained in the towage ticket was at an end, and the men who were negligent had ceased to be servants under that contract, and had passed back into the service of the defendants. The Kate, 104.

-Jurisdiction of English Courts-Vessel being Property of Foreign Sovereign-Appearance and Bail without Authority.]-A vessel which was the property of a foreign Sovereign was arrested in an action for damage by collision. Thereupon the local agent for the vessel in this country, without the knowledge or authority of the foreign Sovereign, instructed solicitors, who procured the release of the vessel by giving an undertaking to put in bail, and also entered an

appearance in the action unconditionally. The plaintiffs, on being informed of the facts, refused to allow the action to be dismissed :Held, that the action must be dismissed with costs. The Jassy, 93.

-

-Limitation of Liability Charterers "Owners."]-Charterers, who have hired a vessel for a period, the master and crew being their servants, are not the "owners " of the vessel within sections 503 and 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and therefore are not entitled to any statutory limitation of liability in respect of loss or damage to person or property. The Steam Hopper No. 66, 22.

Board of Trade Enquiry-Practice-Suspension of Certificate-Duty of Board of Trade to Express Opinion-Appeal to High CourtCosts.]-On a Board of Trade enquiry, when a formal investigation is being held under section 466 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and when the evidence has been given and the questions are put to the Court, and there is a liability for the master or other officer of the ship to have his certificate suspended, the Board of Trade should state whether in their opinion such certificate should be suspended or The Carlisle, 97.

not.

In a case where the Board of Trade had not adopted this course, but had declined to say whether the certificate should be suspended or not, and the Court of enquiry had suspended the master's certificate, and the master appealed,-Held (after reversing the judgment of the Court of enquiry and deciding that the certificate should be restored), that, on the question of costs, the case must be treated as if the Board of Trade had invited the Court of enquiry to suspend the certificate, and that the Board of Trade must pay the costs incurred by the master. Ib.

Wharf in Harbour-Defective Berth-Damage to Vessel-Statutory Duty of Harbour Authority to Render Berth Safe and CommodiousLiability of Harbour Authority for Neglect of Statutory Duty-Duty of Wharfowner to take Reasonable Care to Ascertain Condition of Berth Alongside Wharf-Duty to Warn VesselLiability for Damage to Vessel from Breach of Duty.]-A harbour authority, upon whom the duty is imposed by statute to do all such works as should be necessary for preserving the navigation and use of the harbour by persons trading thereto and rendering it safe and commodious, cannot relieve themselves from the performance of that duty by relying upon its being performed by some one else, and will therefore be liable for damage sustained by a vessel in consequence of the bed of a berth in the harbour being in a dangerous condition owing to a failure on their part to take soundings to ascertain its condition, having relied on

soundings being taken by the Trinity House pilots, who were not their servants, but the servants of, and only responsible for the performance of their duties as pilots to, the Trinity House; and wharfingers, who are the owners of a wharf in the harbour which they invite the owners of vessels to use for the purpose of loading and discharging cargoes on payment of dues to them, being bound-within the rule laid down in The Moorcock (58 L. J. P. 73; 14 P. D. 64)-to take reasonable care to ascertain whether a berth lying alongside their wharf is in a safe and proper condition, and, if not, to warn the owners of a ship about to use the berth that they have not done so, are not entitled to rely solely upon the harbour authority performing their statutory duties in connection with the berth, and consequently will be liable, as well as the harbour authority, for