THE EGYPT’S GOLD

Evening Star, Issue 21286, 15 December 1932, Page 2

THE EGYPT’S GOLD

INTERESTING LAWSUIT > Mr Justice Langtou, sitting with Elder Brethren gave judgment for the defendants in the action brought by La Societe Nouvello des Pechcrics a Vapeur, owners of the steam trawlers Roche Rouge, Roche Francoise, and Roche Ivoire, to recover salvage for services which they alleged they rendered to the cargo of gold on board the P. and O. steamship Egypt, which vessel sank off Ushant on May 20, 1922, while on a voyage from London to Bombay. Gold to the value of £732,250 had already been recovered by an Italian salvage company known as “ Sorima ” (the Societa Ricuperi Marittimi), and the plaintiffs’ claim was brought against that gold. The defendants were the underwriters, to whom the owners of the gold had abandoned it. The plaintiffs’ case was that in the summer of 1926, under an agreement with the Union D’Entreprises Sous Marines, they scut out trawlers with drags and located an obstruction which they believed to bo the Egypt, and that in consequence of the information thus afforded the recovery of the gold by the “ Sorima ” was assisted, to the ultimate benefit of the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, denied that the plaintiffs had proved their claim to have located the Egpyt, or that their work in 1926 had assisted the “ Sorima ” or benefited the owners of the gold. In any event, they said the agreement under which the plaintiffs had worked was such that the plaintiffs’ remuneration thereunder was not dependent on success, nor was it made with the owners or insurers of the gold, or anyone who could confer a maritime lien for salvage. Therefore they contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to salvage. THE JUDGMENT. Mr Justice Langton, in giving judgment, . said that the case had excited considerable public attention by reason of the somewhat spectacular value of the property salved, and also by reason of the really very wonderful work that had been accomplished by_ the Italian company, called the “ Sorima,” in effecting a salvage at what hitherto had proved to be depths beyond the reach of salvage operators.

What lie had to determine in the present case was whether the plaintiffs, in the circumstances, assisted the salvors of the gold of the Egypt in such a way as to found a good claim for salvage. In the first place, he had to decide whether the plaintiffs did locate the Egypt. If ho had to express his own view from the evidence before him he would say that it was probable that what the plaintiffs found was a ship, and that quite possibly that ship was the Egypt. Ho could not possibly put it higher than that. The balance of evidence, however, seemed to show either that Captain Davy was wrong when ho said that there were no rocks where the Egypt was lying, or else that the plaintiffs had not located the Egypt. Ho must therefore come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not established to his satisfaction that the vessel they found was the Egypt. The Elder Brethren were of opinion that Captain Davy’s investigations, intelligently carried out as they were, did not really add to the substantive knowledge which at that time existed as to the position of the Egypt. 'The next question was whether the work of the plaintiffs had assisted in the salvage of the gold. Commander Quaglia had placed the matter beyond all doubt that he was not in any way encouraged by the work done by the plaintiffs, and in the judgment of the court the claim failed on the ground that the court was not satisfied that anything which the plaintiffs had done was of any assistance in the ultimate preservation of the gold. That was a wholly sufficient ground on which to dismiss the claim, and it was the conclusion to which he had come after most careful examination of the evidence given by both sides. THE CONTRACT. As to the question of law arising on the contract, the view which lie had formed was that if it were necessary so to decide he must hold that the claim also failed for the reasons which had been alleged by the defendants. He was satisfied that under their contract the party to whom the plaintiffs looked for remuneration was their own contractor and their own contractor only, the Union D’Entreprises Sous Marines. He could not accept the argument put forward for plaintiffs by Mr Bucknill that this gold, while at the bottom of the sea, was not in the ownership of anybody. So long as the underwriters had not abandoned it it was their property, and ho (his Lordship) could not see that a sub-con-tractor had any ground on which to found a maritime lien, even if he did assist the recovery of the property salved, merely because his own head contractor was unable to pay what lie had promised to pay. If he had to construe the contract he preferred to construe it on the line that it was intended to cover every eventuality, one of them being that the Union D’Entropriscs Sous "Marines might have to abandon the salvage of the gold. That eventuality having occurred, and it being covered by the contract, it was impossible to say that this was a “ no cure, no pay,” contract. The fact that the principal contractor had gone into bankruptcy or was unwilling to pay gave the sub-contractors no right to sue- against the res. For those reasons the plaintiffs’ claim must fail, and there must bo judgment for the defendants, with costs.