The hearing was concluded on Monday, the morning being occupied with the concluding speeches of counsel.
Mr. Macleod argued that wherever plaintifis could" prove their actual damage it was desirable that this should be done. In the present case, plaintifis had put forward their claim as a general one, but when they came into court they offered proof in detail of various losses sustained, damage done to lighters and expenses incurred for insurance and materials. Obviously, they could not have it both ways. They could not ask his Lordship to give an award on a general claim and then say that in addition they wanted their actual losses. It looked very much as though they wanted to charge twice for their risk. Counsel, proceeding, pointed out that the demurrage of the Glaucus was £400 a day, £4,800 for the 12 days, which was about half the claim in the present case. Even to-day, £9,000 was a pretty big claim for salvage, and where the service rendered was that of towage and lightering, it should require a good deal to satisfy his Lordship that such a claim was justified. Courts would not say that, just because a steamer was very valuable therefore a claim had got to be increased, on the basis of a percentage, to an enormous amount beyond anything that would be awarded in similar circumstances but_where a vessel was of less value. Tt was a very handsome way of employing capital if plaintiffs were able to get a return of Tls. 120,000 for 12 days' service by equipment, valued at Tls. 1,000,000. The plaintiffs' claim had been put forward in such a way that defendants felt fully justified in fighting it, and he asked that plaintiffs be made to bear the expenses of the inquiry.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.