Tu this case the amount claimed from the same defendant as last case, was ce, and an partly upplivd, The de defendant, Lousi which he had w of attorney. He also prod tion made before the Eu; Mr. IF. Clapmns tetitying execution of the bill of cal", compliance with ite conditions by Hagar. Ue produced and read a lotter which he had received from, the owuera of the vessel since his arrival here, containing instructions as to his taking' the vessel back to America and as to the repairs which were to be done, the ship having sustained great damage before her arrival in Shanghai, Ho also produced and read a telegram from the U.S, Collection of Customs at Bath, Maine, the port where the vessel was registered, stating that she was owned by Parker HI. Wi and A. Libby. He knew that had been given vy aM to on the ship. He hed demanded from "Captain person named Stewart, ti but Captain the telegram from eu sor's del employed on the premises. She did not he was th that he (Captain Edy could not give her that for the up without further evident of the Defendant had pai 1 hip. Ho and Captain Edgett The Court held that there was 1 greed to submit the matter to to show that the defendant was liable for Stowart's debt and made an order fur 6,95 the amount of plaintiff's wages, with ip since cents, st of May, under a contract made with Mr. J, M. Hagar at New York. He 11th Feb, was nota the time aware of any transaction Before Gengnat J. D, Kennevy, U.S. between Mr. Hagar, Mr. Whi a Consul-General, Acting Judicial: the others by which they of a lien on the Cupts. Rosenra and Weis, Assn ship. Witness hnd received " copy of the notice of intended foreclosure, and a Panxer M. Wurrvone, by his Attoru lotter dated Richmond July flat stating Saxvet Monutso v, Ship " Hacaxsrows, that Mr, Hyyar had failed to perform hie In this suit the libel of Parker M. Whit-contract, He did not receive the letter more, of Bath in the State of Maine, set till about 7 days after his arrival, it having forth that he was the lawful owner of the been mis laid by the ngonts, Messrs. Jardine ship Hagarstown, under a bill of sale Matheson & Ca. The bill of sale (produced) ecuted by the original owner J. M, Hagar d the notice of who had failed to keep the conditions of Gth July 1886. the mortyaye, The libellaut had therefore d to Mr. Hagar on through J. San Francisco, damage constituted Samuel H, Morrison wed on the voyage. ney with instructions to proceed to he following day witness received a hai to take over possession of the vessel rain from Mr. Whitmore asking about from the present Captain William Edgett, ived amount of damage, and the cost of repairs, Witness wired him particulars, on the 1st February and received the reply, "*dlake we repairs, Edgett of the pur po Ouptain Edgett thereupon a (alegre wait orders." He supposed from at Me. Whitmore was the owner of th Wit. to the Collector of Customs at Bath, Maine, fleas produced and reed a umber of cons-to ascertain who was the legal owner of the munications which be had received, from vessel.
The reply was that it was Parker M:
Hagar and Mr, Whitmore amongst re, Gov. H. Theobuld, and A.
The libellant now sought to make an order that the vessel he delivered over to Captain Morrison, and also that Captain Endgott should pay over all the moneys in his hands for freight etc. The answer of the repoudeut Captain Edgett set forth in others, one telling him to make as fow repairs in the ship as possible at Shanghai on account of the cost at that place, but to proceed to Puget Sound, lion Captain morrison arrived and showed his Power of Altoruey, witness thought it his duty to wire to Biz, Hagar to the following effect, Whitmore ds Morrison tu take charge The reply was Hold Allow no change" had of taken any feyae the ship received the one: Whitmore was
yer. He did not certificate ut regime real owners, His Hovovn observed that he thought the certificate was prima facie evidence aa to the owners, and taken in conjunction with the telegram from the Collectur of Customs at Bath would be very strong evidence, Captain Roseprs could not understand how the mortgagees were entered as the owners on the certificate, His Honour said that though the ship was registered in the names of these three parties, there was probably an und as to Hagar being the owner, far us the legal ownership mas cons cerned the ship being registered in the names of tote three persons they had to chim her upon that certificate. 'The bill of sale allowed. the chain of title between the parti Eidgott was not employed by those: three persona and yet one of them had written to him, 'Cup'. Monnison was recalled and in reply to his Honour aid he knew the Collector of Customs at Bath to man, He had been a name was Frank Forrie, acquainted with all parties a the trans Cxptain Rovenrs said he supposed the would hive to go by the uses in whic the ship waa registered. The Oullector of Customs in his telegram said nothing about un—He simply said Whitmore bold wud Libby are the legal one Captain Watts said that if they could not get any other evidence they were bound to go by the certificate.
Enger observed that the certi" ficate would not show any change which talion place tu the Omnereiiip of the ship, but such a change would be recorded the port of regi Court reserved judgment till the ug da; 12th February, giving judgment said—came on to be heard before me with two experienced ae who are familiar with maritime usage, The libellant and respondent agreed to submit the questions at issue without employing counsel although it was aug-gested that it would be well for them to so, the point submitted for our adjudication is who is the legal owner of the ship Hayarstown, The evidence bearing on the point is chiefly documentary. We have the cettiticate of registration of the suid ship dated 20th May 1885 issued at Bath, Maine, in the name of Parker, BL.
George H. Theobald and Abit would not, we take it in a third party from of English and Americ regarded even as prima facie evidence of ownership at the date of ult but only a presumption of fact liable to be disproved ce of a subsequent but as between partie a this case, it would by taken, The true dace trine it strikes us is Inid down in Weaver the ae. Owens, 1 Wallace p. 365, when it says, "the Court takes no distinction between the effects of the register as idence for or xgaiust them in whose ame it stands, but hold generally, that ina question of onnerahip interparties, it prima facie evidence of title in the person in whose name the ship is registered, liable to be rebutted by "proof of actual ownership in another whether temporary or absolute." The name of Jas. M. Hagar, who employed Eugett, the respondent s Master of the suid ship, does not appear on
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.