ington, June 3, 1892. [Ratifications exchanged at Washington, August 1, 18921, contains the following:

ARTICLE I.

The consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents of either of the high contracting parties, residing in the dominions, possessions, or colonies of the other, shall have power to require from the proper authorities the assistance provided by law for the apprehension, recovery, and restoration of seamen who may desert from any ship belonging to a subject or citizen of their respective countries while in the ports of the other country. If, however, any such deserter shall have committed any crime or offence in the country where he is found, his surrender or restoration may be delayed until the proper tribunal before which the case shall be pending, or may be cognizable, shall have pronounced its sentence, and the sentence shall have been carried into effect.

It is understood that the preceding stipulations shall not apply to the subjects or citizens of the country where the desertion shall take place.

ARTICLE II.

The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at London or at Washington without delay.

ARTICLE III.

The present treaty shall come into operation at the expiration of thirty days from the date of the exchange of ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years after that date, and thereafter until terminated by a twelve month's notice to be given by either high contracting party to the other.

In force by order in council of August 18, 1892. Vide Canada Gazette, Vol. xxvi. p. 562 (i).

(i) See also R. S. C. c. 74 & 75, as to Deserters.

OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, RESTRAINT.

Before the A. C. Act, 1861, Admiralty only had jurisdiction to decide questions of title or ownership of a ship, or the proceeds of a ship remaining in the registry, when such questions arose in a cause of possession, salvage, damage, wages, or bottomry (j).

But the 8th section of that Act extended the jurisdiction to the deciding of all questions arising between the co-owners, or any of them, touching the ownership, possession, employment, and earnings of any ship registered in any port in England or Wales (for which "Canada" is here to be substituted as to the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as a Colonial Court of Admiralty, (see 2 Col. Cts. Ad. Act, 1890, p. 179, ante),—or any share thereof and to the settling of all accounts out standing and unsettled between the parties in relation thereto, with power to direct the ship or any share thereof to be sold, and to make such order in the premises as to the court should seem fit.

Where a ship is wrongfully detained, the ship itself may be arrested and proceeded against, and a decree obtained restoring it to the owner's possession, and the court will enquire into the validity of an alleged sale, or concerning any other circumstances which affects the rights of property in the ship (k).

In the case of a sailing yacht of 3 tons, unregistered, a co-ownership action was dismissed, by the Maritime Court. of Ontario (1).

The court inclines against dispossession and requires the plaintiffs claim to be clearly proved (m).

The court had even when its jurisdiction was more restricted, authority to decree possession of a vessel to the owner who has been deprived of it by force or fraud (n). (j) 3 & 4 V. c. 65 s. 6.

(k) The Eliza Cornish 1 Spk. 36; The Empress, Sw. 160; The Glasgow, Sw. 145; The Victor, 13 L. T. N. S. 21; The Margaret Mitchell, Sw. 382; The Australia, Sw. 486; The Bonita, Lush. 252; The Horlock, 2 P. D. 243; The Rose, L. R. 4 A. & E. 6.

(1) The Hector, 24 U. C. L. J. 281.

(m) The Victoria, Sw. 408; 5 Jur. N. S. 204.

(n) The Beatrice otherwise The Rappahanaek, 36 L. J. Ad. 9.

Where there are several owners of a ship, and the majority in interest wish to send her upon a voyage, and the minority have possession of the ship and decline tolet her go, the majority may arrest the ship and proceed for a decree of possession to enable them to send her upon the voyage (0).

But the plaintiffs may be compelled to give security for the safe return of the ship to an amount sufficient to cover the value of the shares of the minority (p).

The minority on the other hand may bring an action of restraint against the majority, arrest, and detain the ship until security is given for her safe return (q).

or

The court will entertain actions by part owner owners against co-owners to prevent them from damaging their rights or interests (r).

Restraint. In an action of restraint by the owner of 2/64th shares against the other owners he obtained bail (8).

Where there is an equal division of voices and interests as to undertaking a particular voyage or adventure, Admiralty Courts in the United States have decreed a sale of the ship (t).

In England a change of possession upon petition of the minority of interest has been refused (u).

The Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, s. 9, empowers the court in suits between co-owners to direct the sale. But it will not exercise the power of sale conferred upon it by ordering the sale of a ship, unless a part owner -whether he be the owner of a minority or majority of shares-makes a very strong case, and in the opinion of

(0) The New Draper, 4 Rob. 287; The Kent, Lush 495; The Elizabeth and Jane, 1 W. Rob. 282; The Idas, Br. and Lush, 68.

(p) The Apollo, 1 Hagg. 306.

(q) Haly v. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77; The Vindobala, 13 P. D. 42.

(r) Abbott on Shipping, 13th Ed. 88, 147, 740.

(8) The England, 12 P. D. 32; Groff A. Bernstorff, 2 Spk., 30; The Falcon, 5 P. D. 169.

(t) Skrime v. The Sloop Hope, Bee. 2; The Brig Seneca, Gilpin 10.

(u) See The Valiant, 1 W. Rob. 64; The Egyptienne, 1 Hagg. 346 n;

The Elizabeth and Jane, 1 W. Rob. 278.

the court the sale will be to the advantage of all the owners (v).

In such actions the shares of the plaintiffs may be appraised, and before a sale by auction is ordered, the defendants are given the option of purchasing such shares at the appraised value (w).

Ownership. It was held that the provisions of the M. S. Act would not prevent property in a ship from passing to the assignee in insolvency, under the Insolvency Act, 1876, Canada (x).

In England the Admiralty Division will appoint a receiver in a co-ownership suit where circumstances exist, which, in the opinion of the court, render such a course just and convenient (y).

In actions of possession, if the ship is foreign, notice of the action must be served on the consular officer of the State to which she belongs (2), before a warrant for her arrest will issue.

It is with the greatest reluctance that the court adjudicates in suits of possession where foreigners alone are concerned (a).

But the Admiralty Division in England has jurisdiction to, and will, on the intervention of the representative of a foreign State, or by consent of the parties, entertain a cause of possession or mortgage of a foreign ship belonging to such State, so far as to ascertain the true position of the claimants and the nature of their title, and will, where it is for the advantage of the parties, order a sale of the ship (b).

All courts having Admiralty jurisdiction in any of Her Majesty's Dominions have power to remove the master of a ship upon application by the owner, being within the juris

(v) The Marion, 10 P. D. 4.

(w) Wms. & B. 28.

(x) Jones v. Kinney, 11 S. C. R. 708.

(y) The Ampthill, 5 P. D. 224.

(z) Rule 37, p. 27, ante.

(a) The Groff A. Bernstorff, 2 Spinks, 30.

(b) The Evangelistria, 46 L. J. Ad. 1; 3 Asp. N. S. 264; 35 L. T. 410; 25 W. R. 255.

diction of the court, or by the part-owner or consignee, or by the agent of the owner, or by any certificated mate, or by one third or more of the crew of such ship, and upon proof on oath to the satisfaction of the court that such removal is necessary. And the court may appoint a new master (c).

The fact that a master of a ship is also a part-owner, does not affect the construction of the contract under which he is master, as to the question of dismissal (d).

In actions of possession in Admiralty the master of a ship who retains possession against the will of the owners may be dispossessed. Where the master is not a part-owner, the court will order him to deliver up possession whenever the majority of the owners are unwilling that he should retain possession; where the master is a part owner the court usually requires some special reason to be shown for his removal, but even in this case will usually remove him on the application of the majority without inquiring minutely into the causes of their dissatisfaction (e).

If during the progress of a voyage the master of a Canadian foreign sea-going ship, or of an inland ship is superseded, quits the ship, or is succeeded in command, he is to deliver to his successor the ship's certificate of registry and documents relating to the navigation of the ship and to the crew which are in his custody, under the penalty there mentioned; and his successor should, in case of said sea-going ships, enter in the log book a list of the documents so delivered to him (f).

The master of a vessel has no power to sell her so as to affect the insurers, except under circumstances of stringent necessity; such circumstances as after sufficient examination of her condition, after every exertion in his power, within the means at his disposal, to extricate her from peril, or to raise funds for her repair, leave him no alternative but to sell her as she is (g).

(c) M. S. A. 1854, s. 240.

(d) Guildford v. Anglo-French Steamship Co., 9 S. C. R. 303.

(e) Wms. & B. 23.

(f) R. S. C. c. 74, s. 105; Ibid. c. 75, s. 29.

(g) The Cobequid Marine Insurance Co. and Barteaux, L. R. 6 P. C. 319.