Statement of defence for demur Court hereinafter mentioned, deny the allegations in paragraph 5 of this statement of claim. They were always ready to action and willing to load the said vessel pursuant to the said charterparty, and did not keep and detain her for seven days over and above the lying days allowed thereby, or for any longer period than was covered by the said payment into Court. 3. Except as aforesaid, the detention of the vessel was wholly caused by the acts and defaults of the master of the vessel, as herein before stated, and not by the acts of the defendants. rage. 4. The defendants bring into Court the sum of £60 for Payment two days' demurrage of the said vessel, and say that the same into Court. is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. Ship-owner against Charterer for agreed Hire of Chartered Vessel. 1. The plaintiffs were, on the 1st August, 1874, the owners of Statement the steamship" British Queen." of claim for hire of on four 2. On the 1st of August, 1874, the said steamship being steamship then in Calcutta, a charter-party was there entered into be- months' tween J. S., the master, on behalf of himself and the said steam- charterparty. ship, of the one part, and the defendants of the other part. 3. By the said charter-party it was agreed, amongst other things, that the defendants should be entitled to the whole carrying power of the said steamship for the period of four months, commencing from the said 1st August, 1874, upon a voyage or voyages between Calcutta and Mauritius and back; that the defendants should pay for such use of the said steamship to the plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta, monthly, the sum of £1,000; that the charter should terminate at Calcutta ; and that if at the expiration of the period of four months the said steamship should be upon a voyage, then the defendants should pay pro ratâ for the hire of the ship up to her arrival at Calcutta, and the complete discharge of her cargo there. 4. The "British Queen" made several voyages in pursuance of the said charter-party, and the first three monthly sums of £1,000 each were duly paid. 5. The period of four months expired on the 1st December, 1874, and at that time the steamship was on a voyage from Mauritius to Calcutta. She arrived at Calcutta on the 13th Statement and the discharge of her cargo there was completed on the 16th of December aforesaid. of claim for freight on four months' charterparty. Statement of defence. Counterclaim. 6. The plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta called upon the defendants to pay to them the fourth monthly sum of £1,000, and a sum of £500 for the hire of the said steamship from the 1st to the 16th December, 1874, but the defendants have not paid any part of the said sums. The plaintiffs claim :— The sum of £1,500, and interest upon £1,000, part thereof, from the 1st December, 1874, until judgment. Statement of Defence. 1. By the charter-party sued upon it was expressly provided that if any accident should happen or any repairs become necessary to the engines or boilers of the said steamship, the time occupied in repairs should be deducted from the period of the said charter, and a proportionate reduction in the charter money should be made. 2. On the repairs became necessary to the engines and boilers of the said steamship, and ten days were occupied in effecting such repairs. 3. On the an accident happened to the engines of the said steamship at Mauritius, and two days were occupied in effecting the repairs necessary in consequence thereof. 4. The defendants are entitled to a reduction in the chartermoney of £400 by reason of the time occupied in effecting the said repairs. Counter-claim. By way of set-off and counter-claim the defendants claim as follows: 1. By the charter-party it was expressly provided that the charterers should furnish funds for the said steamship's necessary disbursements, except in the port of Calcutta, without any commission or interest on any sum so advanced. 2. The defendants paid, for the necessary disbursements of the said steamship in the port of Mauritius between the and the 1874, sums amounting in all to £625 14s. 6d. 3. The charter-party also contained an express warranty that the said steamship was at the date thereof capable of steaming claim. nine knots an hour on a consumption of 30 tons of coal a day, Counter- damages in respect of the matters stated in this set- Reply. 1. The plaintiffs join issue upon the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Reply. paragraphs of the defendants' statement of defence. 2. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 2 of the counter-claim the plaintiffs do not admit the correctness of the amount therein stated. And all sums advanced by the defendants for disbursements were allowed to them by the plaintiffs by deducting the same from the third monthly sum of £1,000 paid (subject to such deduction) to the plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta by the defendants on or about the 12th November, 1874. 3. With respect to the alleged breach of warranty and the alleged damages therefrom stated in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs, the plaintiffs say that the said steamship was at the date of the charter-party capable of steaming nine knots an hour on a consumption of 30 tons of coal a day. If the steamship did not, during the said charter, steam more than eight knots an hour, and that on a consumption of more than 35 tons a day as alleged (which the plaintiffs do not admit), it was in consequence of the bad and unfit coals provided by the defendants for the use of the said steamship. Rejoinder. Statement of claim for expenses of discharging cargo and Rejoinder. The defendants join issue upon the plaintiffs' reply to their set-off and counter-claim. Action for Erpenses of discharging Cargo on Defendants refusing to do so, and for Demurrage. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners of the "D.," and the defendants are merchants carrying on business in London. 2. On or about the 16th of September, 1876, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed by charter-party that the said vessel, then demurrage. on passage to Bombay, should after delivery of her outward cargo, load at Bombay aforesaid a full cargo of linseed in bags, the cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside at merchants' risk and expense, and that being so loaded, she should proceed on a voyage from Bombay aforesaid to a safe port in the United Kingdom, or on the continent between Havre and Hamburg, both inclusive, as ordered on signing bills of lading, or so near thereto as she might safely get, and there deliver the said cargo, always afloat; and it was further agreed that the cargo should be brought to and taken from alongside at merchants' risk and expense, and that the discharge was to be with all possible dispatch, and ten days should be allowed on demurrage over and above the said lying days at 4d. per register ton per day. 3. The cargo was loaded under the said charter-party, and on signing the bills of lading the vessel was ordered to deliver her cargo at Amsterdam, as her port of discharge under the terms of the said charter-party. 4. The said vessel proceeded upon and completed her voyage, duly arriving as near to Amsterdam as she could get, always afloat, and all things happened and all conditions were performed necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to have the said vessel unloaded and discharged by the defendants, according to the terms of the said charter-party. 5. The defendants, however, did not nor would unload and discharge the said vessel, nor take delivery of the said cargo with all possible dispatch, according to the terms of the said charter-party, or at all, and detained the said vessel for a long period beyond the time within which they were bound to discharge the said vessel. of claim for ex penses of discharging 6. By reason of the premises the plaintiffs were compelled to Statement discharge the said cargo from the said vessel, and were put to great expense in and about the unloading and discharge of the said cargo, and for lightering and warehousing the same, and cargo and sustained a loss by the detention of the said vessel, and the demurrage. defendants became and are liable to pay to the plaintiffs £204 88. 3d., the amount of the said expenses, and a further sum of £121 16s. for six days' demurrage of the said vessel. The defendants have not paid the said sums, or either of them, or any part thereof, and have wholly refused to indemnify the plaintiffs from the losses and expenses incurred by them by reason of the defendants' breach of their contract. The plaintiffs claim £500 damages. Statement of Defence. 1. A cargo was duly loaded on board the said vessel upon the Defence. terms of the said charter-party, and of the said bills of lading, and the vessel was ordered to A., and proceeded upon her voyage, but the defendants deny the other allegations contained in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs. The said bills of lading were indorsed by the defendants to Messrs. A. E. & Co., or order. 2. The vessel, instead of completing her voyage and proceeding to A., or so near thereunto as she could safely get, proceeded only to N., a place in the kingdom of Holland, not within the port of A., and the captain there discharged his cargo into lighters, and caused the same to be lightered to A. The defendants did not take delivery at N. aforesaid. 3. By proceeding to or passing through one or other of the canals which at the date of the vessel's arrival connected A. with the sea, or by partly discharging her cargo, or by some other means, the said vessel could have proceeded to A. or much nearer thereto than N. within the meaning of the said charterparty and bills of lading. 4. There is a well-known custom in the A. trade, whereof the plaintiffs had notice when the said charter-party and bills of lading respectively were signed, whereby the owners of all vessels chartered as aforesaid, bound for A., if such vessels discharge their cargo at N., pay the expenses of and incidental to the discharging it into lighters and lightering it from N. to A. Ship did not go to place of destination, and that expenses were in curred improperly. Q |