428
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.
[No. 28

full speed, but, nevertheless, the “Sarpedon” came into collision with the “Julia David,” striking with the port side her stem and port bow, and doing her considerable damage.

4. The vessels separated immediately. The engines of the “Julia David” were then stopped, and her pumps sounded. She was making much water, and it was found necessary to turn her head away from the wind and sea. As soon as it could be done without great danger, she was steamed in the direction in which those on board her believed the “Sarpedon” to be; but when day broke and no traces of the “Sarpedon” could be discovered, the search was given up, and the “Julia David,” being in a very disabled state, made her way to a port of refuge.

5. Save as hereinbefore appears, the several statements contained in the petition are denied.

6. A good look-out was not kept on board the “Sarpedon.”

7. The helm of the “Sarpedon” was improperly ported.

8. Those on board the “Sarpedon” improperly neglected or omitted to keep her on her course.

9. Those on board the “Sarpedon” did not observe the provisions of Article 16 of the “Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea.”

10. The collision was occasioned by some or all of the matters and things alleged in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th paragraphs hereof, or otherwise by the default of the “Sarpedon,” or those on board her.

11. No blame in respect of the collision is attributable to the “Julia David,” or to any of those on board her.

And by way of counter-claim the defendants say that the collision caused great damage to the “Julia David.”

And they claim—

(1.) The condemnation of the plaintiffs [and their bail] in the damage caused to the “Julia David” and in the costs of this action;

(2.) To have an account taken of such damage, with the assistance of merchants;

(3.) Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require.

Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) C.D., Defendants.

———

REPLY.

In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]

The plaintiffs deny the several statements contained in the answer and counter-claim [or as the case may be].

Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) A.B., &c., Plaintiffs.

———

(2.) In an Action for Salvage:

a. (The “Crosby.”)

PETITION.

In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]

Writ issued , 18 .

1. THE “Asia” is an iron screw steamship of 902 tons net register tonnage, fitted with engines of 120-horse power nominal, is of the value of £15,000, and was at the time of the services hereinafter stated manned with a crew of twenty-three hands under the command of George Hook Bawn, her master.

2. At about 9 a.m. on the 29th of April, 1877, while the “Asia”—which was in ballast proceeding on a voyage to Nikolaev to load a cargo of grain—was between Odessa and Ochakov, those on board her saw a steamship ashore on a bank situated about ten miles to the westward of Ochakov. The “Asia” immediately steamed in the direction of the distressed vessel, which made signals for assistance.

3. On nearing the distressed vessel, which proved to be the “Crosby,” one of the “Asia’s” boats was sent to the “Crosby” in charge of the second mate of the “Asia,” and subsequently the master of the “Crosby” boarded the “Asia,” and, at the request of the master of the “Crosby,” the master of the “Asia” agreed to endeavour to tow the “Crosby” afloat.

4. The “Crosby” at this time was fast aground, and was lying with her head about N.N.W.

5. The master of the “Asia” having ascertained from the master of the “Crosby” the direction in which the “Crosby” had got upon the bank, the “Asia” steamed up on the starboard side of the “Crosby” and was lashed to her.

6. The “Asia” then set on ahead and attempted to tow the “Crosby” afloat, and so continued towing without effect until the hawser which belonged to the “Asia” broke.

7. The masters of the two vessels being then both agreed in opinion that it would be necessary to lighten the “Crosby” before she could be got afloat, it was arranged that the cargo from the “Crosby” should be taken on board the “Asia.”

8. The “Asia” was again secured alongside the “Crosby,” and, the hatches being taken off, cargo was then discharged from the “Crosby” into the “Asia,” and this operation was continued until about 6 p.m., by which time about 100 tons of such cargo had been so discharged.

9. When this had been done both vessels used their steam, and the “Asia” tried again to get the “Crosby” off, but without success. The “Asia” then towed with a hawser ahead of the “Crosby,” and succeeded in getting her afloat, upon which the “Crosby” steamed to an anchorage and then brought up.

10. The “Asia” steamed after the “Crosby” and again hauled alongside of her and commenced putting the transshipped cargo again on board the “Crosby,” and continued doing so until about 6 a.m. of the 30th of April, by which time the operation was completed, and, the “Crosby” and her cargo being in safety, the “Asia” proceeded on her voyage.

11. By the services of the plaintiffs the “Crosby” and her cargo were rescued from a very dangerous and critical position, as in the event of bad weather coming on whilst she lay aground she would have been in very great danger of being lost with her cargo.

12. The “Asia” encountered some risk in being lashed alongside the “Crosby,” and she ran risk of also getting aground and of losing her charter, the blockade of the port of Nikolaev being at the time imminent.

13. The value of the hawser of the “Asia” broken as herein stated was £40.

14. The “Crosby” is an iron screw steamship of 1,118 tons net (1,498 gross) register tonnage. As salved the “Crosby” and her cargo and freight have been agreed for the purposes of this action at the value of £41,092.

The plaintiffs claim—

(1.) Such an amount of salvage, regard being had to the said agreement, as the Court may think fit to award;

(2.) The condemnation of the defendants [and their bail] in the salvage and in costs;

(3.) Such further and other relief as the case may require.

Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) A.B., &c., Plaintiffs.

———

ANSWER.

In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]

1. The defendants admit that the statement of facts contained in the petition is substantially correct, except that the reshipment of the cargo on board the “Crosby” was completed by 4 a.m. on the 30th April.

2. The defendants submit to the judgment of the Court to award such a moderate amount of salvage to the plaintiffs under the circumstances aforesaid as to the said Court shall seem meet.

(Signed) C.D., &c., Defendants.

———

REPLY.

In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]

The plaintiffs deny the statement contained in the 1st paragraph of the answer that the shipment of the cargo was completed by 4 a.m. on the 30th April.

Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) A.B., &c., Plaintiffs.

———

b. (The “Newcastle.”)

PETITION.

In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]

Writ issued , 18 .

1. THE “Emu” is a steam-tug belonging to the Whitby Steamboat Company, of 6 tons register, with engines of 40-horse power nominal, and was at the time of the circumstances hereinafter stated manned by a crew of five hands.

2. Just before midnight on the 22nd of July, 1876, when the “Emu” was lying in Whitby Harbour, her master was informed that a screw steamship was ashore on Kettleness Point. He at once got up steam, but was not able, owing to the tide, to leave the harbour till about 1.45 a.m. of the 23rd.

3. About 2 a.m. the “Emu” reached the screw steamship, which was the “Newcastle,” which was fast upon the rocks, with a kedge and warp out. The wind was about N., blowing fresh; the sea was smooth, but rising; the tide was flood.

4. The master of the “Emu” offered his services, which were at first declined by the master of the “Newcastle.” Shortly afterwards the kedge warp broke, and the “Newcastle” swung square upon the land and more upon the rocks. The master of the “Newcastle” then asked the master of the “Emu” to tow him off, and after some conversation it was agreed that the remuneration should be settled on shore.

5. About 3 a.m. those on board the “Emu” got a rope from the “Newcastle” on board, and began to tow. After some towing this rope broke. The tow-line of the “Newcastle” was then got on board the “Emu,” and the “Emu” kept towing and twisting the “Newcastle,” but was unable to get her off till about 5 a.m., when it was near high water. The master of the “Emu” then saw that it was necessary to try a click or jerk in order to get the “Newcastle” off, and