ADMIRALTY COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 99, 27 April 1903, Page 5

ADMIRALTY COURT.

CLAIM VOR DISTRIBUTION OF

SALVAGE

This morning His Honor Mr Justice Conolly held a sitting of the Supreme Court in its Admiralty jurisdiction to hear the case of Patrick Bonfield v. the owners of the tug Pilot, a suit for the distribution of salvage in connection with the salving- of the barque Emerald near the Kaipara Heads on September ISth last. Mr Reid (instructed by Mr Coleman) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Martin (instructed by Messrs Mackeehnie and Nicholson) for the defendants.

Mr Reid read the statement of claim, which was for distribution of salvage. It. set out that Patrick Bonlleld, the plaintiff, was the master, of the Pilot, and that he claimed against the owners of that boat an equitable share in the salvage of the barge Emerald at the Kaipara Heads on September 18th, 1902, on which date the Pilot rendered salvage to trie Emerald when ashore and abandoned in the South Channel at the Heads. Mr Reid said the facts were, that on the date in question the small tug-boat Pilot, of which' plaintiff was captain, went out to the assistance t>2 the Emerald, which was ashore on the Kaipara bar, at considerable danger to the steamer and her crew, which was proved by the fact that the steamer's bulwarks were damaged and a mast lost. The rescue of the Emerald's crew was effected, and they were landed.- The Pilot put out. again to try and save the ship. They got a hawser on board, and managed to get the vessel off. For this heavy salvage was due, according to the authorities on the subject, to the owners, master and crew of the Pilot, up ~o 50 per cent, of the Emerald's value. Soon afterwards the owners of the Pilot instituted an action for salvage against the owners of the Emerald, on behalf of themselves, and the master and crew of the Pilot. • Plaintiff's name, however, was omitted from this claim, a.nd Edward Harrison, one of the owners, was put down as master of the steamer. The claim for salvage was for £1000 Subsequently plaintiff was asked to sign a document in the office of the owners, which he did. He was then handed .Which he was told was his sharp of the salvage. Plaintiff repudiated this as a fair share of salvage. He believed that it would not be contended that the signing of this receipt cleared the defendants of further liability. The action instituted by the owners of the Pilot for salvage did. not come, into court, but it was known that they paid the owners of the Emerald £500, and for that sum the ship was handed over to them.

Patrick Bonfield. the plaintiff, gave evidence in support of Mr' Reed's statement. He detailed what was done in rescuing the crew and getting the barque off. E. Harrison was mate of the. steamer iat the time. There was considerable danger in going alongside the barque, and the steamer lost part of her bulwarks and a mast in doing'so. Both himself and the mate had a narrow escape. Regarding the incident of signing the itfceipt in the- Harrisons' office, referred to by Mr Reed, witness said that the receipt book was placed in front of him, and he signed it not knowing whether it was wages or something else that he was signing foi}. The., clerk pushed over to him five one pound notes. Mr John Harrison came to the door, and on witness asking him what this was for lie replied that it was for salvage. Mr Harrison said it had cost him a lot, and witness said that he expected more than that, find that he would like one-fourth the value of the ship. He subsequently wrote resigning his position. When he signed the receipt he had not got his glasses, without which he could not see to read. He said lie would go on board for his glasses, but the clerk said.it did not matter and that ii was all right

To Mr Martin: He thought £25 to £ 30 would; coyer .gll .the damage that the Pilot, sustained in ; assisting the barque. JEchvard Harrison, one of the owenrs, was the mate on the Pilot, and was not the master. Witness received

£7 α-ihontli. On the clay witness signed the receipt he uid not to the best of his belief speak to Mr John Harrison before signing it Witness denied that he had previous conversation with Mr Harrison about the salvage. Witness denied that Mr Harrison then advised him to consider the matter and that he came back in an hour and got the

money.. It was admitted by defendant's counsel that a writ for £ 1000 for salvage was issued by the owners of the Pilot against the owners of the Emerald, and that the barque Emerald was transferred to John Harmon for £500, the salvage claim being dropped. Captain Thomas Fernandez, marine surveyor, ami secretary of the Auckland brunch of the Shipmasters' Association, said he had had considerable experience in the valuing of ships. He had seen tlte barque Emerald at the Hobson-street Wharf, since she had been on the Kaipara bar. He should judge her tonnage to bo between COO and 800 tons, and her value to be about £2000. When new a boat of that , class would be worth about .£4000.'

To Mr Martin: His estimate of £2000 was the ship's value before she struck at the Kaipara. This was the ease for the plaintiff.

Mr Martin, in opening the case for, the defence, said that after the Emerald'had been got oil', Mr John Harrison, the owner of the Pilot, put in a claim for salvage. The owner of the Emerald then came over from Melbourne, and the barque as she then lay in the Kaipara. was valued by Lloyd's surveyors at from .£250 to £300. He submitted that thi.s was the value to be considered in a claim for salvage. Mr Harrison was joined by two others, not owners of the Pilot, and the three bought the barque for £500. It was agreed that Mr Harrison's claim for salvage and other work should be settled at £150. Of this £00 was for towing the barque, etc. Mr Harrison was advised that the crew of the Pilot were entitled to £00. Ho accordingly divided £90 between the owners and the crow, one-third going to the crew and two-thirds to the owners. He gave £5 a-pieee to Captain Bonfield and the engineer, and the rest was divided among the crew in equal shares.

John Harrison stated that the repairs to the Pilot, consequent upon the salvage operations, Svere between £ ICO and £ ISO. When he purchased the barque for £500, which included the abandonment of his claim ; fov salvage, he was joined with two others. It was agreed among them that witness' salvage services should be reckoned at £]50. This included the removal of the barque from one part of the Kaipara to another, pumping and ballasting. This cost £00, leaving the salvage at £90, which he divided between the owners and the crew, giving the former two-thirds, and the latter one-third. Plaintiff, witness' brother and the engineer got £5 each. Witness' brother got £1C a month. He was not certificated.

His Honor: The fact .is you only paid Bonfield the wages of an ordinary seaman.

Witness said this was so. Bonfield wanted to come, though his services were not required. Witness said he could not pay him more.

His Honor remarked that the state of things was extraordinary. Witness, in answer to Mr. Martin, said that Bonfield was really sailing master. It cost £2400 to repair the Emerald in Auckland. The vessel was insured for £ 2000.

To Mr. Reed: When lie bought the Emerald he estimated she was worth £400.

His Honor: Yet you gave £500 for her and abandoned your salvage claim. Witness said he wished tokeep the •value up so as to get salvage, and he was caught in a trap. . •

Witness, continuing-; said that lie did not know that Bonfield's name was not inserted in the writ for £1000 salvage. The name, "John. Bloomfield," was intended for Bdnfieius.

His Honor pointed out that this name, "John Bloomficld," was inserted after the issue of the writ. ;

Witness, continuing, said Bonfield's name was? accidentally omitted. His brother, who was described as master, was not certificated for outside, work. The Pilot could not go outside the harbour unless Bonfield was on board. Wit-