Mar. 5.] THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 431

and the freight to become payable in respect of the said
voyage to pay to the said Cassa Marittima di Genova, their
successors or assigns, the sum of £4,278 8s. 7d. (which included
the principal charges and the maritime interest due thereon),
within thirty days after the said barque should arrive at her
port of discharge; and the said bond provided that the said
Cassa Marittima di Genova should take upon themselves the
maritime risk of the said voyage.
3. The "Roma Capitale" has since successfully prosecuted
her said intended voyage for which the aforesaid bond was
granted, and arrived at as her port of discharge on or
about the 30th day of March, 1877.
4. Before the issue of the writ in this action the said bond
became due and payable, and was duly indorsed by the said
Cassa Marittima di Genova to the plaintiffs, who thereby
became and are the legal holders thereof, and the said sum
of £4,278 8s. 7d. is now due and owing thereon to the plain-
tiffs.
The plaintiff's claim—
(1.) A declaration for the force and validity of the said
bond;
(2.) The condemnation of the said barque "Roma Capi-
tale" and her freight in the sum of £4,278 8s. 7d.,
with interest thereon at 4 per cent. per annum from
the time when the said bond became payable, and in
costs;
(3.) A sale of the said barque, and the application of the
proceeds of her sale and of her freight in payment to
the plaintiffs of the said amount and interest and
costs;
(4.) Such further and other relief as the case may require.
Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) A.B., &c., Plaintiffs.

(7.) In an Action for Mortgage :
PETITION.
In the Vice-Admiralty Court of
[Title of Action.]
Writ issued , 18 .

1. The above-named brigantine or vessel "Juniper" is a
   British ship belonging to the Port of , of the regis-
   tered tonnage of 109 tons or thereabouts, and at the time of
   the mortgage hereinafter mentioned, Thomas Brock, of
   , was the registered owner of the said brigantine.
2. On the 4th day of July, 1876, 32/64th parts or shares of
   the said brigantine were mortgaged by the said Thomas Brock
   to the plaintiff to secure the payment by the said Thomas
   Brock to the plaintiff of the sum of £400, together with
   interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, on or
   before the 1st day of July, 1877.
3. The said mortgage of the "Juniper" was made by an
   instrument dated the 4th day of July, 1876, in the form pre-
   scribed by the 66th section of "The Merchant Shipping Act,
   1854," and was duly registered in accordance with the provi-
   sions of the said Act.
4. No part of the said principal sum or interest has been
   paid, and there still remains due and owing to the plaintiff
   on the said mortgage security the principal sum of £400,
   together with a large sum of money for interest and expenses;
   and the plaintiff, although he has applied to the said Thomas
   Brock for payment thereof, cannot obtain payment without
   the assistance of this Court.
   The plaintiff claims—
   (1.) Judgment for the said principal sum of £400, together
   with the interest and expenses;
   (2.) To have an account taken of the amount due to the
   plaintiff;
   3.) Payment, out of the proceeds of the said brigantine
   now remaining in Court, of the amount found due to
   the plaintiff, together with costs;
   (4.) Such further and other relief as the nature of the case
   may require.
   Dated the day of , 18 .
   (Signed) A.B., Plaintiff.

(8.) In an Action between Co-owners (for Account):
PETITION.
In the Vice-Admiralty Court of
[Title of Action.]
Writ issued , 18 .

1. The "Horlock" is a sailing ship of about 40 tons register,
   trading between and

2. By a bill of sale duly registered on the 11th day of June,
   1867, the defendant, John Horlock, who was then sole owner
   of the above-named ship "Horlock," transferred to Thomas
   Worraker, of , 32/64th parts or shares of the ship for
   the sum of £320.

3. By a subsequent bill of sale duly registered on the 16th
   December, 1876, the said Thomas Worraker transferred his
   said 32/64th shares of the ship to George Wright, the plain-
   tiff, for the sum of £175.

4. The defendant, John Horlock, has had the entire manage-
   ment and the command of the said ship from the 11th day of
   June, 1867, down to the present time.

5. The defendant has from time to time up to and in-
   cluding the 24th September, 1874, rendered accounts of the
   earnings of the ship to the afore-mentioned Thomas Worraker,
   but since the said 24th of September, 1874, the defendant
   has rendered no accounts of the earnings of the ship.

6. Since the 16th December, 1876, the ship has continued
   to trade between and , and the plaintiff has
   made several applications to the defendant, John Horlock,
   for an account of the earnings of the ship, but such applica-
   tions have proved ineffectual.

7. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the management of the
   ship, and consequently desires that she may be sold.
   The plaintiff claims—
   (1.) That the Court may direct the sale of the said ship
   "Horlock;"
   (2.) To have an account taken of the earnings of the said
   ship, and that the defendant may be condemned in
   the amount which shall be found due to the plaintiff
   in respect thereof, and in the costs of this action;
   (3.) Such further or other relief as the nature of the case
   may require.
   Dated the day of , 18 .
   (Signed) A.B., Plaintiff.

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

1. The defendant denies the statements contained in
   paragraph 2 of the petition.
2. The defendant further says that he never at any time
   signed any bill of sale transferring any shares whatever of the
   said ship "Horlock" to the said Thomas Worraker, and
   further says that if any such bill was registered as alleged on
   the 11th June in the said 2nd paragraph (which the defen-
   dant denies) the same was made and registered fraudulently
   and without the knowledge, consent, or authority of the
   defendant.
3. The defendant does not admit the statements contained
   in the 3rd paragraph of the petition, and says that if the said
   Thomas Worraker transferred any shares of the said ship to
   the plaintiff as alleged (which the defendant does not admit)
   he did so wrongfully and unlawfully, and that he had not
   possession of or any right to or in respect of the said shares.
4. The defendant denies the statements contained in
   paragraph 5 of the petition, and says that he never rendered
   any such accounts alleged therein.
5. The defendant does not admit the statements contained
   in paragraph 6 of the petition.
   Dated the day of , 18 .
   (Signed) C.D., Defendant.

REPLY.
In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]
The plaintiff denies the several statements in the answer.
Dated the day of , 18 .
(Signed) A.B., Plaintiff.

(9.) In an Action for Possession :
PETITION.
In the Vice-Admiralty Court of .
[Title of Action.]
Writ issued , 18 .

1. The plaintiffs are registered owners of 44/64th shares in
   the British ship "Native Pearl," and such shares are held
   by them respectively as follow: Morgan Parsall Griffiths is
   owner of 16/64th shares, Edmund Nicholls of 8/64th shares,
   William Meager of 4/64th shares, Isaac Butler of 8/64th
   shares, and William Herbert of 8/64th shares.
2. The only owner of the said ship other than the plaintiffs
   is John Nicholas Richardson, who is the registered owner of
   the remaining 20/64th shares of the said ship, and has
   hitherto acted as managing owner and ship's husband of the
   said ship, and has possession of and control over the said
   ship and her certificate of registry.
3. The defendant, the said John Nicholas Richardson, has
   not managed the said ship to the satisfaction of the plain-
   tiffs, and has, by his management of her, occasioned great
   loss to the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs in consequence
   thereof before the commencement of this action gave notice
   to the defendant to cease acting as managing owner and
   ship's husband of the said ship, and revoked his authority in
   that behalf, and demanded from the defendant the possession
   and control of the said ship and of her certificate of registry;
   but the defendant has refused and still refuses to give
   possession of the said ship and certificate to the plaintiffs,