1888 THE the vessel off. They reached the scene of the accident on Monday about 2 p. m., and remained till the vessel was got afloat. Ballast was discharged on Monday, and the vessel NORDCAP. moved about thirty feet. More ballast was discharged on Tuesday, and about 5.30 p. m. of that day the vessel was got off, and towed to Chatham by the tug St. Andrew. The other tugs towed the masts and rigging to the same place. From the evidence, it appeared that the wind began to blow from the east pretty hard on the following day—Wednesday-toward the land, and if the vessel had not been got off on Tuesday she would have been driven further ashore and greatly damaged, if not broken up entirely. The evidence was that the charge for a tug is $50 a tide, or $100 a day when it works by the day. The master of the vessel, who was also part owner, after considerable negotiation, accepted $210 from the plaintiff, and released, so far as he could, any right he and the other owners had in the vessel. Out of this amount the wages of the seamen were paid in full, and the plaintiff, to secure his claim and get title to the vessel by process of law, arrested the vessel for the salvage services, claiming $2,000. The evidence showed the value of the salved vessel in her then condition to be not more than $800. C. A. Palmer, for plaintiff; W. C. Winslow, for the master and owners. And now (Oct. 6th, A. D. 1888), WATTERS, J., after hearing the parties, valued the vessel at $800, and allowed the salvors $400 and costs. It was also ordered that a commission of sale should issue for the sale of the vessel, and that the proceeds should be brought into the registry, after which further directions would be given as to the distribution of the amount. On a subsequent day (Oct. 22, 1888), the Registrar reported that a commission of sale had issued; that the vessel had been sold under the directions of the Marshal; and that the plaintiff had purchased the vessel for the sum of $1,050, which amount had been paid into the registry. Mr. Palmer, on behalf of the plaintiff, moved for a distribution of the proceeds of sale. 1888 THE WATTERS, J. The proceeds of sale will be distributed as follows: (1) The costs of the plaintiff in the suit; (2) the NORDCAP. Salvage award of $400 to the plaintiff; (3) any surplus to be paid to the defendant's solicitor as representative of the owners, as it appears the seamen have all been paid. For citation of cases as to salvage see note to The St. Cloud, ante p. 145, et seq. Proceedings can be had against the owners of the ship or property salved personally, as well as against the res for the recovery of salvage remuneration; The Hope, 3 C. Rob. 215; and there is no distinction between river and sea salvage; The Carrier Dove, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 243. The value of the salving ship in all cases will enter into the consideration of fixing the amount; The Otto Hermann, 33 L. J. Ad. 189; also the danger incurred, the probable vitiation of insurance policy on account of deviation, the liability of shipowner to owners of cargo; The Sir Ralph Abercrombie, L. R. 1 P. C. 454; and in the case of mail steamers, the penalties incurred under the contract for deviation; The Silesia, 5 P. D. 177; and especially when human life was in danger; The Skibladner, 3 P. D. 24. Formerly salvage reward was principally given for labor and skill in actual services rendered to a vessel Ordered accordingly. in distress without particular regard to the claims of the owner of the salving ship; The Two Friends, 2 W. Rob. 349; The Enchantress, Lush. 93. The Court has full power to apportion the amounts not only among the different interests of owner, master and crew of a salving ship, but also where there are different sets of salvors; The Livietta, 8 P. D. 24. While an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal to review the award of the Admiralty Division, the Court of Appeal will only interfere in exceptional cases; The England, L. R. 2 P. C. 253; The Woburn Abbey, 21 L. T. 707; The Lancaster, 9 P. D. 14; The Glenduror, L. R. 3 P. C. 589. In the latter case it was held there must be a difference of at least one-third before it will interfere. The same principle is observed in appeals from Vice-Admiralty Courts to the Privy Council; The Castlewood, 42 L. T. 702; The De Bay, 8 App. Cas. 559. See also Newson on Salvage, p. 99, et seq. THE HATTIE E. KING-COLLINS. Towage Combination Rates - Not Illegal. The owners of tug-boats plying in the harbor of St. John, N. B., entered into an agreement to charge a uniform rate for towage services, and specified the amounts for the different tows. The effect was to materially increase the rates over former years, when there was free competition and cut rates. The plaintiffs' tug, at the request of the master of the H. E. K., rendered to the vessel towage services, and they charged the combination rates. The vessel owner offered to pay what he had paid in former years for like services, and refused to pay more, claiming the combination rates were against public policy and illegal. Held, That as the charges were reasonable and fair for the services performed the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the full amount claimed. The owners of tug-boats plying in the harbor of St. John, N. B., in the year 1889, entered into an agreement to maintain a uniform rate for towage services for that year. The effect of the agreement was to materially increase the rates for towage services over former years, when there were cut rates and free competition. The Hattie E. King, an American vessel of 272 tons burthen, registered in the State of Maine, where the owners resided, in that year engaged the plaintiffs' tug-the Doane-to tow the vessel from Rodney wharf, in the harbor of St. John, up through the Falls to King's mills, where she was to load lumber for the American market. The vessel was accordingly towed to the mills on April 2nd. By request of the master of the vessel, the tug went for her, when loaded, on April 8th, and towed her down through the Falls into the harbor, and out to sea. The card or combination rates for these services were $11 for the tow up, and $12 for the tow down, in all $23, and this latter amount was charged and claimed from the owners of the vessel. The vessel owners refused to pay this amount, claiming that the combination rate was higher than in former years, and that it was illegal for the owners of tugs to combine, and by that means sensibly increase the rates over 1890 March 7. 1890 THE KING. former years. They offered to pay $13 in full for the services performed, and insisted that similar services had been HATTIE E. performed for that amount in former years under free competition. It was proved on the hearing by several owners of tugs that the rates obtained in former years had been unremunerative; that the card or combination rates were not excessive, but were only fair and reasonable for the services performed; and that the plaintiffs' charge of $23 was moderate and reasonable. C. A. Palmer, for plaintiffs, the owners of the tug, claimed that where there is no agreement as to the amount, a fair and reasonable remuneration for the towage services rendered will be allowed. Newson on Salvage, fc. (ed. 1886, p. 147). The Vice-Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Peerless (1); towage has a priority over salvage, pilotage or bottomry. The Constancia (2), The master has a Desty. Shipping and Ad, ss. 87, 88, 89. James Straton, for the vessel and owners. The question for decision is one of fact. Is the sum of $13 a reasonable amount for the services performed? The suit should not have been brought in this Court, but in the City Court of St. John. What was the market rate for the year 1888? The combination among the tug-boat owners is in restraint of trade, and illegal. Hilton v. Eckersley (3); Hornby v. Close (4). In former years the same work was done for $12, and the test of what is reasonable is what the work could be done for when there was no combination. Palmer, in reply. What the defendants paid in former years was no criterion in this case. There was no evidence of any restraint of trade. The defendants knew what the rates were before the tug was engaged. Tug owners have a right to agree among themselves as to rates, and to say they will not tow for less. There is nothing illegal in that. (1) Lush. 130. (3) 6 E. & B. 47 s. c.; 25 L. J. Q. B. 199. (4) L. R. 2 Q. B. 153. 1890 THE KING. WATTERS, J. I decide in this case in favor of the plaintiffs, and assess the amount at $23-the full sum claimed. I have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court to enter- HATTIE E. tain this suit. The evidence shows that towage services were performed by the plaintiffs for the defendants, and at their request. It further appears that the amount claimed for these services is fair and reasonable, although in former years similar services were performed for smaller sums. Then there was keen competition and cut rates, and the owners of tugs have given in evidence that under these rates they lost money, or at least did not make any. As the sum in dispute in this case is small, I shall only allow half costs to all parties, except to the witnesses, who are to be paid their full fees. Decree accordingly. Upon the question of illegal combination in restraint of trade, and conspiracy to injure a rival in business, The Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, is a leading and important case. It passed through the different Courts to the House of Lords, and was elaborately argued by able counsel, and was fully was fully considered in the judgments of the several Courts. Application was first made for an interlocutory or interim injunction against the defendants, which was refused, 15 Q. B. D. 476. The action was then tried before Lord Coleridge, C. J., without a jury, in which the plaintiffs' claimed damages for a conspiracy to prevent them from carrying on their trade between London and China, and an injunction against the continuance of the alleged wrong- Owners of ships, in order to M |