As to how far the Court will interfere, on a complaint made by the Registrar against proctors, for non-payment of his fees which they have received from their clients, and have not paid over to him.

JUDGMENT.-Hon. Henry Black.

This is a case of some importance to the officers and practitioners of the Court, inasmuch as it is founded on a complaint made by the registrar against two of the proctors for non-payment of his fees, which he alleges by his petition that they have received from their clients and have not paid over to him. This charge is not substantiated by affidavit as any charge implicating the character of a practitioner ought invariably to be; and on this ground alone it would be the duty of the Court to dismiss the application. But it is defective also in another respect; for, instead of directly alleging that his fees have been received by the proctors, the registrar merely tates that he hath every reason to believe and does

verily believe" that they have done so. An indirect allegation of this kind is manifestly irregular-in every charge against the professional conduct or character of an officer of the Court, the facts ought to be alleged in the most direct and positive terms.

The Court disclaims all jurisdiction in the matter of fees. The registrar may at his option require them when the service is performed, or he may give credit, and then his recourse, if they are not paid, is in the ordinary courts of the country (a). But the non-paying over of fees which have been charged by a proctor against his client as being due to the registrar, and which have been actually received by him for the registrar, is a breach of discipline tending to lower the character of the Court, which has always cognizance in a summary manner of the conduct of its officers (b); and without pronouncing any opinion as to statements made in argument that the registrar had already adopted another remedy, the Court, in dismissing the present application, cannot but express an earnest wish that there may be no occasion for the exercise of its authority in this or any similar case. No such case has come before it since I have had the honour of presiding over it (now some twenty-three years), and in this instance I have reason to think that the difference between the parties has arisen rather from a personal misunderstanding than from intention to commit any wrong (c).

Drolet in person.

Andrews for Holt and Irvine.

(a) Pollard v. Gerard, 1 L. Raym. 703; Ballard v. Gerard, 1 Salk. 333.

(b) Peddle v. Evans, 3 Hagg. (Eccl.) 687-9; In the Goods of Lady Halton Finch, Ib. 255, 287; Leigh's case, Gib. 995, 3 Mod. 332; Prentice v. Prentice,

3 Phill. 311; Peddle v. Toller, 3 Hagg. 389; Sir J. Nicholl.

(c) Proctors and advocates are officers of the law, held to the strictest integrity, and the best faith and honour to their clients and the Court. They are accountable to the Court for.

3

PALMYRA.

Friday, 1st July, 1859.

PALMYRA.-LOVITT.

The Palmyra sunk in the St. Lawrence, was raised and saved by the machinery on board of the Dirigo, and the great skill and experience of her master and crew. £1000 sterling awarded as salvage.

This was a cause of salvage, promoted by Russell D. Bartlett, owner and master of the steamer Dirigo, for services rendered under the circumstances noticed in the following judgment of the Court :—

JUDGMENT.-Hon. Henry Black.

The Palmyra, a vessel of five hundred and eighty-six tons, having on board a cargo of about seven hundred and sixty tons of railway iron, sailed from the port of Newport in England for Quebec, on or about the 13th June, 1858, and reached the lower part of the river St. Lawrence without accident; but, on the 31st of July, she ran ashore on Red Island Reef. She was taken off the reef by the steamer Princess Royal, which was sent down from Quebec to her assistance, and was proceeding towards Quebec in tow of the steamer, when, on the 5th of August, at about one o'clock in the morning, she struck on White Island Reef; she there dropped her anchor, and remained with about three feet of water under her for an hour and a half, when she parted her chains and went over part of the Reef, in doing which she knocked out her stern-post and received other damage, and in consequence she sank in about two hours and a half afterwards.

White Island Reef is about ninety-six miles below Quebec, on the north side of the south channel of the river, which is there about eight miles and a half wide, being divided into two channels by the island, about five

1

miles from the south shore, and three miles from the north shore; the Reef extends about three miles from the island towards the north-east. The place where the

Palmyra lay is a very dangerous one, and very much exposed to the prevailing winds and currents, and it is in evidence that had she floated, or had she been less heavy, she would have been forced over the reef and lost.

After she sank, the master left her, and proceeded to Quebec to obtain assistance, and to consult with Mr. Fry, the Lloyd's Agent, as to the best course to be pursued. It was agreed that one Glennie, a diver, should be employed to go down to the Palmyra to inspect her bottom, and to report to Mr. Fry by telegraph the state in which he should find her; but before he went down, Russell D. Bartlett, the promoter, having offered his services to save the vessel, an arrangement of some kind was made with him on the subject. The promoter was the owner and master of a steamer called the Dirigo, of one hundred and eighty tons burden, and one hundred and fifty horse power, provided with a very powerful steam pump, a diving apparatus, and machinery for raising vessels. She had on board besides the master, a crew consisting of a mate, two carpenters, three smiths, one diver, two firemen, one engineer, four or five sailors, one steward, and one pilot, in all eighteen. She was a new vessel, and having never been tried, the promoter was anxious to show her powers. The result of an unusually large mass of evidence is to satisfy me, that the understanding between the promoter and the master of the Palmyra was, in effect, that if the promoter saved the ship or her cargo, he should be well remunerated, but that if he failed in his attempt, he should have no remuneration whatever. There appears to have been no agreement for any specific sum, and indeed, it was impossible to put any value upon the work, before knowing the difficulties to be encountered. It was certain that he was to get nothing if he did not

PALMYRA.

5