(Wages.)

c. 27], or The Admiralty Act, 1891 [54 & 55 Viet. (Can.), c. 29], because to give those statutes a retroactive effect in such a case as this would be an interference with the rights of the parties.

The Aurora, 3 E. C. R. 228.

29. The master of a ship has a lien for wages as against a mortgagee. The C. N. Pratt, 5 Can. L. T. 417; The Maytham, 18 Can. L. J. 285.

30. The ship M. arrived in Liverpool, England, with a cargo consigned to parties there, with instructions to the master by the owners for their agents to collect inward freight and transact the ship's business. The agents purchased an outward cargo of coals for St. John, N. B., and informed the master it was on ship's account. By request of the agents, the master signed a draft for payment of cargo, although the owners, but unknown to the master, had sent the agents funds for the coals. The agents shortly after became insolvent. Held, in an action by the master for his wages, that the owners could not charge the draft against the master, and that he was entitled to recover his full wages with costs.

The Mistletoe, Stockton, ante, 122.

31. The plaintiff brought an action against the P. for wages and disbursements as master of the vessel. In answer to the master's request when abroad for a statement of his account and for payment, the managing owner sent the master his individual promissory note for $800, payable with interest, on account of the wages. The managing owner subsequently became insolvent. The master, on his return to St. John, N. B., demanded payment from the owners of his wages and disbursements, the sum claimed including the amount of the promissory note. The owners, by their counterclaim, sought to set-off against the master's claim, among other things, the amount of the promissory note; but Held, That the master, under the circumstances of the case, had not lost his lien upon the vessel. The set-off was rejected, and the plaintiff held entitled to recover, with costs. The Plover, Stockton, ante, 129.

32. Under the Seamen's Act (R. S. C. c. 74), a claim for less than $200 for wages earned on board a Canadian registered vessel must be enforced by a summary proceeding under secs. 48–55 of the Act. A County Court judge has no jurisdiction to try such a claim in an ordinary action for wages. Beattie v. Johansen, 28 N. B. 26.

(Wages.)

33. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, excludes the Admiralty jurisdiction in suits for wages of master and mariners when the amount due is less than £50 sterling. The evidence in this case showing a less amount due, the claim of a master was dismissed without exception to the jurisdiction pleaded.

The Margaretha Stevenson, 2 Stuart, 192 (1873).

34. That by the Dominion statute, "The Seamen's Act, 1873," the jurisdiction of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Quebec, as respects vessels registered in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, being restricted to claims for masters and seamen's wages for $200, the 189th and 191st sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, are so far repealed as to reduce £50 stg. to $200, but that the Vice-Admiralty Act, 1863, has not in any other way effected or repealed these sections.

The Royal, Cook, 326 (1883).

35. In a suit by the master of a steam-tug against the owner for wages and disbursements, Held, That a Vice-Admiralty Court cannot, under the Act of 1863, exercise its jurisdiction so as to give effect to an agreement between the owner and master of a vessel, where the duties to be performed are miscellaneous and not incident to the situation of a master. ibid.

36. In a suit for ship's disbursements brought by the master, who became liable for their payment upon condition that the owner did not pay them, there must be a demand on the owner by the creditors or by the master before the master can validly bring his suit; and when the master sues for ship's disbursements without first presenting his accounts he cannot have costs. ibid.

37. The 189th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, applies to foreign as well as to British vessels, and a Vice-Admiralty Court cannot entertain a suit for seamen's wages, the demand being below £50 sterling, except upon a reference as prescribed by that Act. The Monark, Cook, 345 (1883).

38. But held by the Maritime Court of Ontario that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, is not to be read in connection with the ViceAdmiralty Act, 1863, which gives jurisdiction to that Court, and that the Court had jurisdiction although the sum claimed was under $200. The Robb, 17 Can. L. J. 65 (1881).

TT

(Wages.)

39. The master of a vessel registered in Canada, being also part owner, was discharged at the home port, where the other owners also resided. He caused the vessel to be arrested in a cause of subtraction of wages for an amount under $200. Held, That the Court had no jurisdiction under 36 Vict. c. 129, s. 56 (Can.), and the cause was dismissed with costs.

The Jonathan Weir, Stockton, ante, 79 (1883).

This is not now the law.

40. The master of a steam barge allowed to sue for wages under £50, and also held, damages for wrongful dismissal may be sued for and recovered as wages. The W. B. Hall, 8 Can. L. T. 169.

41. A seaman, the engineer of a tug, took proceedings in the Exchequer Court, Admiralty side, on a claim for $136 wages, and arrested the ship. On the trial it was contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try a claim for less than $200, the owner not being insolvent, the ship not being under arrest, and the case not referred to the Court by a judge, magistrate, or justice, pursuant to R. S. C. c. 74, s. 34 (The Inland Waters Seamen's Act). Held, That the Admiralty Act, 1891, conferred upon the Exchequer Court all the jurisdiction possessed by the High Court, Admiralty Division, in England, as it stood on the 24th July, 1890, the date of the passing of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and that the Admiralty Court in Canada could now try any claim for seamen's wages, including claims below $200; and that s. 34 of R. S. C. c. 75, was repealed by implication (not having been expressly reserved) to the extent, at any rate, that it curtailed the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court to entertain claims for seamen's wages below $200 in amount. The W. J. Aikens, 4 E. C. R. 7 (1893).

The last named case was decided after the note to The Jonathan Weir, ante, p. 80, was printed. It is satisfactory to observe the decision supports the view of the law expressed in that note.

42. Where a statute required the execution of a warrant or process under an order of two justices of the peace for seamen's wages to be authorized by the judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court. Held, That the enactment imposed upon the Court a duty to supervise the proceedings of the magistrates. The Canadienne, Cook, 209.

43. It appearing that a warrant and process of two magistrates, issued for the sale of an undivided interest in a vessel, had not legally issued a petition to authorize them was refused. ibid.

WAR.

1. It does not exist till authorized by His Majesty.

The Dart, Stewart, 301.

2. Property found in the country at the commencement of a war is not liable to be seized.

ibid.

See Foreign Enlistment Act; Forfeitures; Jurisdiction; ViceAdmiralty Courts.

See Practice.

See Rule 35, ante, p. 420.

WARRANT.

WATCH.

1. A passenger cannot be compelled to keep watch unless in cases of necessity. The Friends, 1 Stuart, 118.

WITNESS.

1. As to the competency of the master as a witness in suits with The Sophia, 1 Stuart, 96.

seamen.

2. Master admitted as a witness in a case of pilotage. ibid.

3. While the master exercises the control of the navigation of the ship, and before delegating his authority to the pilot, as the liability is with him, he is an incompetent witness in collision cases. The Lord John Russell, ibid, 194.

4. While the pilot has the control of the navigation of the ship, as he is substituted in the place of the master-and the master has ceased, therefore, to be liable as such-the liability for default, negligence, or unskilfulness, comes to rest upon the pilot, and he is not a competent witness. ibid.

5. The question resolves itself into a question of negligence, or want of skill and care in those persons who, at the precise time, had the control and direction of the vessels.

The Mary Campbell, 1 Stuart, 224.

6. Defendants bail is an incompetent witness.

The Sophia, ibid, 219.

7. The law of evidence, since the above decisions, as respects interested witnesses, has been changed; and now, by Lord Denman's Act, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, and Lord Brougham's Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, the evidence of interested parties is made admissible, leaving

(Witness.)

the question of credibility to the discretion of the tribunal before which the evidence is given. See The Courier, 2 Stuart, 91.

8. Money payments to witnesses larger than those legally due them, even when shown to have been made with no wrong intent, but from an unfounded apprehension that they would leave the country before testifying, will so discredit their testimony as seriously to affect its credibility. The N. Churchill, Cook, 65.

WORDS.

See Acts of Parliament, 2; Admiralty, 1; Discretion; Fishery Acts of Canada, 5, 8; Interpretation of Terms; Mariner's Contract; Reasonable and Probable Cause; Seamen, 21, 22, 23; Voyage, 1.

WRECK.

1. Salvage allowed to the chief and second mates, and carpenter, for their meritorious services, equal to one-third of the gross proceeds arising from the sale of the articles saved from the wreck. The Flora, 1 Stuart, 255, note.

2. Compensation decreed to seamen out of the proceeds of the materials saved from the wreck by their exertions.

The Sillery, ibid, 182.

3. In the case of a wrecked and derelict steam-tug, one-third of the gross proceeds arising from its sale allowed, over and above costs, to salvors for meritorious services. The Progress, Cook, 308.

For citation of Canadian and United States laws relating to reciprocal wrecking privileges, see note to The Frier, ante, p. 184.

YOUNG (THE HON. SIR WILLIAM).

See Nova Scotia.