Mr. Mowat, the Arbitrator, on Monday afternoon gave his decision on the claim made by the owners ut the pilot-boat N.C. Fa um against Messrs, Butterfield Swire, representing the Ocean Steamship Co., owners of the Menelaus, for damages caused by the sit kinguf the pilot-beat by the Menelaus. The award wases follows The pilot-boat S. C. Furukan was sunken the Ist November last, by the s.s. Meneluns at the mouth of the river, and, the owners: vf the latter vessel having admitted their liability, the question of the amount of damage was referred to amy arbitration by the parties, as the matter would have come before mein the regi se if a suit had been instituted in the Eu The plaintiffs (as 1 will call of the pilot-boat) claimed in all the agents of the Menelaus offered, without prejudice, Tls. 2,500. The claim was made up ut the three following items, 1.—Value of boat is. 6,000 2.—Consequential damages, being loss of profits at Tls. 20 terday for (say) 100 days while a new Leat was being built neats - 2,000 3.—Value of private effects lost... 'B00 to item 1, the value of the boat. This is always a ditticult matter to assess satisfactorily, and in the present case 1 without two of the data which usually help one in coming to a conclusiou—viz. the original cust, and the insured value. She was built here in 1870 or 1871, but there is unfortunately no record of her cost, anit she was not insured, because pilot-boats are not insurabl Nor was she ever sold on the market since she was built. Evidence was given, however, with regard to another pilot-boat, the Duniel Webster, which throws some light on the value of the best at auction for Tls. 4,500, and again last year privately for Tls. 4,000.-"Tt is-clear-that the value of the 8. C. Farnham must be put at a considerably higher figure. She was, as Lhave said, july one-hale the age of the Duniel Webster, and in other respects a better boat. She was also, admittedly, in very good order, and the fact that only some is, 1,200 had to be spent on her for repairs (other than metal ling) for the last tive years, spanks, as a wit ness for the defendants said, highly for her condition. The same witness said that she was well worth Tls.6,000tothe pilots working. her, but this is not the true criterion of her value. Another witness fur the defendants said that she would be a better bargain'to a purchaser at Tls. 6,000 than the new vessel which was being built for the plaintiffs at a total cost, fitted and equipped, of Tis, 8,500. He added, however, thut that did not in his opinion cover the ground—by which I understood him to mean that he had not intended to convey that her value was as much as Tis, 6,000, And T think that quite consistent with his previous answer. He probably would have gone as far as Tls, 6,500 or perhaps even further, had the question been put to him, for people in buying have regard more to the present outlay, than to the value some time hence of the thing they are purchasing. A witness for the plaintiffs went so far as to say that the C. Farwham was worth very neatly what it would cost to replace her, but that is tu entirely ignore the difference between old and new boats.
The question is, What is the value of a bout, 20 years uld, but in good repair and excellent condition, and one which (according to a witness for the defendants) might have lasted 20 to 40 years more—as com pared with a brand-new one, which, with a new and complete equipment, would cost (as T make it) a total of Ts, 8,400? The question is simply one of uld versus new, for—apart. from the superior value of what is new, and what will therefore be longer in requiring repairs and will last so much longer—the new boat will not be better than the vid one. And I thus fall back upon the rough rule in insurance cases, as furnishing a well-recognised practical solution where anything like exactitude is not attainable, 1 accordingly allow two-thirds of Tis, 8,400, ive. 5,600, as being the fuir value of the S. C, Farnham when she was sunk, as to the second head, consequential damages for loss of profits, No case was cited which would justify me in allowing such a claim in the circumstances of the present case, viz., that of a total loss, where there was no evidence of a beneficial cvutract for the use of the vessel. It therefore falls to the ground. The plaintiffs will, however, have interest at 8 per cent. on the value vf their vessel from the date of loss to the date of payment.
'As to the 3rd item, value of the effects ost. Tullow the account claimed (is. 100) for the foreigners' effects. That for the effects of the eight natives (is, 400), I have reduced to is. 180.
The plaintifis ought to have the major part of their costs, but not full costs they have failed in one part of their claim, and some time was taken up in the investi gation and discussion of that part of the case, (The Gleaner, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cases (US.), 582). Counsel will probably be able to agree upon the amount to be allowed.
'The defendants must pay for the award the sum which they would have had to pay on a reference before the Registrar, viz., $40 for the two days' hearing.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.