of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, and dated the 16th day of April, 1891.

Whereas a libel has been filed in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, on the 14th day of April, 1891, by J. S., libelant, against the brig Q., for the sum of two thousand dollars, on which process of attachment has issued, and the said brig is in custody of the marshal under the said attachment, and X. Y. has applied for a discharge of said brig from the custody of the marshal, and has filed a claim claiming the said brig as owner, and has filed a stipulation for the claimant's costs, pursuant to the rules and practice of the said Court:

Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden X. Y., Roe, and Doe, shall abide by and perform the decree of this Court, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise the same shall be and remain in full force and virtue.

Sealed and delivered, and taken and acknowledged, this 16th day of April, 1891, before me,

[SEAL.]

[Same affidavit as in Form IV.]

Notary Public.

FORM X.-ORDER APPOINTING APPRAISERS.

At a stated term, etc. Present: The Honorable Charles L. Benedict,

District Judge.

ROBERT PICKFORD et al.

vs.

THE BARK B., HER TACKLE, ETC. Upon the affidavit of [or consent of the parties hereto], now, on motion of S. & G., proctors for the owners of said bark B., it is ordered that F. E. M. and A. S. be, and they are hereby, appointed appraisers to appraise the value of the bark B., her tackle, etc., and return the appraisement made to the Clerk of this Court forthwith; [and that before proceeding to make such appraisement said appraisers choose in writing a third person, who shall act with them in case they disagree as to the value of said vessel, that the appraisement be made in the first instance by the two appraisers herein named, and that, in case they cannot agree, then the third person so chosen act with them, and the appraisement of two of said appraisers stand as the appraisement of said vessel.]

FORM XI.-NOTICE TO APPRAISERS.
[TITLE.]

SIR: Take notice that you together with A. S. have been appointed appraisers to appraise the value of the bark You will please call at the office of the Clerk of the U. S. District Court, in the City of Brooklyn, at

We, the undersigned, having been appointed appraisers to appraise the value of the bark B., do solemnly swear that we will faithfully appraise the same to the best of our skill and ability.

Subscribed and sworn to, etc.

FORM XIII.- NOTICE OF APPRAISEMENT.

[TITLE.]

F. E. M
A. S.

The undersigned, having been appointed appraisers to appraise the bark B., her tackle, etc., do hereby give public notice, that they will proceed to appraise said bark at the South Central Wharf, Atlantic Basin, where she now lies, on the 4th instant, at ten o'clock A. M. of that day. Dated, Brooklyn, Dec. 2, 1891.

FORM XIV.-REPORT OF APPRAISERS.

[TITLE.]

F. E. M.,
A. S.,

Appraisers.

We, the undersigned, having been duly appointed and sworn as appraisers to appraise the bark B., her tackle, etc., do report that we have examined and appraised said bark, and do find that said bark, her tackle, etc., are worth the sum of $1400.

All of which is respectfully submitted.
Dated, Brooklyn, Dec. 4, 1891.

FORM XV.-EXCEPTIONS TO LIBEL.

[TITLE.]

F. E. M.
A. S.

The claimant hereby excepts to the libel herein for insufficiency and indistinctness, in the following respects:

1. It does not disclose how the steamer C. bore when first seen from the tug E.

2. It does not disclose what lights of the steamer C. were seen from the tug E., and when they were seen and how they bore.

S. & G., Proctors for Claimant.

FORM XVI.-— ANSWER IN ADMIRALTY.

To the Honorable Addison Brown, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York:

J. S. and others, owners and claimants of the steamship T., her engines, etc., as the same are proceeded against on the libel of M. and N. in a cause

of contract civil and maritime, answer said libel and complaint as follows:

First. The claimants admit the partnership of the libelants, and they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the other allegations of the first article of said libel.

Second. The claimants admit that on or about the 31st day of December, 1885, at Genoa, Italy, there was shipped in apparent good order and condition by R. & Co. on board said steamship, then lying in said port of Genoa, and bound for the port of New York, 113 iron drums represented to contain glycerine, said to be marked and numbered as alleged in the second article of said libel, and that thereafter the master or agent of said vessel signed bills of lading for said merchandise, wherein and whereby they acknowledged the receipt thereof in apparent good order and condition, and agreed to deliver the same, subject to the exceptions and conditions mentioned in said bills of lading, in the like good order and well conditioned as received, at the port of New York, unto Drexel, Morgan & Company, or assigns, upon the payment of freight agreed upon.

Further answering, the claimants deny each and every other allegation of the second article of said libel.

Third. The claimants have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of the third article of said libel, and therefore deny the same.

Fourth. The claimants admit that thereafter said vessel sailed from the port of Genoa on her voyage to New York, where she arrived on or about the 27th day of March, 1886, and there delivered said merchandise in the like good order and condition in which the same was received, subject to the exceptions and conditions mentioned in the said bills of lading.

They admit that three of said drums were damaged, and that part of the contents thereof was lost. They admit that payment of the claim of $150.00 has been demanded of the agents of said steamship, and refused. Further answering, the claimants deny each and every allegation of the fourth article of said libel not herein before specifically admitted.

Fifth. The claimants admit the jurisdiction of this court, and deny the other allegations of the seventh article of said libel.

Sixth. Further answering, the claimants allege that said steamship T. is, and was at the times herein mentioned, a British vessel, hailing from and sailing under the British flag.

That the drums of glycerine hereinbefore mentioned were well and properly stowed by a competent stevedore in the manner usual and customary at the port of shipment, and were well and sufficiently dunnaged. That a bill of lading was duly given therefor, to which the claimants beg leave to refer and make a part of this their answer, whereby it was stipu lated and agreed that said merchandise should be delivered, subject to the exceptions and conditions therein mentioned, from the ship's deck, where the ship's responsibility should cease, . . . at the port of New York, ... the act of God, the Queen's enemies, . . . loss or damage resulting from any of the following perils, whether arising from the negli gence, default, or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, engineers, or other persons in the service of the ship, namely, or other

perils of the seas, rivers, navigation, or land transit, of whatever nature or kind soever and howsoever caused, excepted; . . . weight, measurement, contents, quality, brand, and value unknown; and not accountable for loss or damage resulting from sweating, leaking, breakage, rust, decay, ... deterioration in quality, slightness or insufficiency of packages, stowage, or contact with or smell or evaporation from any other goods. And it was further agreed that the ship-owner was "not to be liable for any damage to any goods which is capable of being covered by insurance, nor for any claim, notice, of which is not given before the removal of the goods." And, "in case of damage, loss, or non-delivery, the ship-owner not to be liable for more than the invoice value of the goods." That thereafter said vessel with said merchandise on board sailed from the said port of Genoa to the port of Leghorn, thence to Castellamare, thence to Catacolo, thence to Patras, thence to Trieste, and thence to certain Sicilian ports, thence to Naples, thence to Gibraltar, and thence to New York, where she arrived after an unusually long and boisterous passage on or about the 26th day of March, 1886.

That during said voyage said vessel encountered very heavy weather in the Adriatic and Mediterranean and in the Atlantic, which caused the vessel to strain and labor heavily, and roll and pitch and ship large quantities of water, and the cargo to work and strain.

That whatever damage was done to said drums of glycerine resulted from the perils of the seas aforesaid, and is due in no way to any fault or negligence on the part of the claimants, or of the master, officers, or agents of said vessel; all of whom, on the contrary, did everything in their power for the protection and care of said merchandise.

That the said drums in which the said glycerine was packed were of fragile material and brittle metal, entirely insufficient to withstand ordinary sea perils, and that the breaking of said drums was caused by such insufficiency, and by defects thereof, as well as by the bad weather encountered by the said vessel, and by perils of the seas, and by other causes excepted in said bill of lading.

That by the law of the flag of said steamship, as well as by the law of the place of the contract, all of the exceptions of said bill of lading, as above set forth, are valid against the shippers of said merchandise, and against the libelants; and the claimants beg leave to refer to such laws, which they will prove upon the trial hereof.

That all and singular the premises are true.

Wherefore the claimants pray that said libel may be dismissed with J. S. AND OTHERS,

costs.

[Verification.]

By G. BROTHERS, Agents

FORM XVII.-PETITION TO BRING IN VESSEL UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 59.

To the Honorable Edward T. Green, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey:

The petition of John Smith, sole owner of the ship Emily, against the steam-tug Franklin, her engines, etc., and against all persons claiming any

interest therein, in a cause of collision, civil and maritime, alleges as follows:

First. The petitioner was at the times hereinafter mentioned, and is now, the sole owner of the ship Emily, which is a British vessel, hailing from Liverpool, England, of 864 tons register, and was up to the time of the collision hereinafter mentioned tight, staunch, and strong, and in every way seaworthy.

Second. [Sets forth facts of collision between ship Emily in tow of tug and a dredge at anchor.]

Third. Said collision was not caused or contributed to by any negligence on the part of the petitioner or of those in charge of said ship, but was caused by the negligence of the steam-tug Franklin, in the following respects among others. [Here faults are specified.]

Fourth. On or about the 5th day of November, 1888, Richard Roe filed a libel and commenced a suit in this court against said ship Emily, her tackle, etc., only, for damages alleged to have been sustained by said steam dredge by the collision aforesaid, in the sum of $5000; and on or about the 12th day of November, 1888, the petitioner duly filed in said cause a claim to said ship Emily, her tackle, etc., with the stipulation for costs required by the rules and practice of this Court, and also a stipulation in the sum of $6500, the agreed value of said ship. Your petitioner has not yet filed his answer to said libel, the process not having yet been returned.

And your petitioner alleges that said steam-tug Franklin, her engines, etc., ought to be proceeded against for said damages in the same suit as said ship.

Fifth. Said steam-tug Franklin is now within this district and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Sixth. All and singular the premises are true, and within the jurisdiction of the United States and of this Honorable Court.

Wherefore your petitioner prays that process may issue according to the practice of this Court and the rules of the Supreme Court in Admiralty against the steam-tug Franklin, her engines, etc., to the end that said tug may be proceeded against in this suit for the damage alleged to have been sustained by the libelant Roe, as if said tug had been originally proceeded against herein. And the petitioner further prays that all persons claiming any interest in said tug Franklin may be cited to appear and answer the libel herein and this petition, and that said tug Franklin may be condemned and sold to satisfy the claim of the libelant for damages, if any, with interest and costs, and also the costs of petitioner herein, and that the petitioner may have such other or further relief as may be proper. Sworn to, etc. JOHN SMITH.

FORM XVIII.- INTERLOCUTORY DECREE AND DEFAULT IN AD

MIRALTY.

At a stated term, etc. Present: Hon.

[TITLE.]

Judge.

The marshal having returned on the monition issued in the above entitled cause that he had attached the said vessel, her tackle, apparel, and