To this petition the following answer was filed:—
1. Par. 1. is admitted with the exception that the defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court which is denied, 2. Par. 2 and 3 are admitted, In answer to Pars. 4 and 7 the defendants aver that they have no knowledge of the allegations contained therein and leave the plaintiffs to prove the same.
4. Pars. 5 and 6 are denied.
5. In further answer to the plaintiffs' petition the defendants aver that the said collision was caned by the negligence of those on board the two carse boats.
Wherefor the defendants pray this Honourable Court to dismiss this action with costs.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition it was found that a certain amoring of cargo had been salved, reducing the los to Tis, 3,473,74, and after he ise, the plaintiffs were awarded this amount together with the costs of the action.
An application for a rehearing of the case having been made, this was set down for Friday, January but the Assessor stated that the application could not be considered unless the defendants put up. security in an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment, and seven days were granted by' the Assessor jin which to find the required security.
The Different Regulations In the course of their defence the shipowners alleged that, the accident was the direct result of fringement of.the Harbour Regulations by the lighterman aw to the number ut craft permitted to
operation his brought out the along: cexsel during loading fact that' there are two selts of Regulations governing this.
Clause 45 ut the of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.