Q. B.] THE CHESHIRE WITCH. [ADM. that, although the fact might not come until a later | the plain meaning of the words of the contract, the period to the knowledge of the underwriters, then excess of risk on the Red Gauntlet would be within all was done which the policy required. It is not. the contract. At the time the policy of the 19th however, necessary to go that length; it is enough March was effected, it was known to both parties to say that it is sufficient if the declaration be made that the Red Gauntlet was lost, but it was not on the first convenient occasion. By this con- known that the Red Gauntlet was one of the ships struction the underwriters are protected, because, which had been insured by the Hong Kong Comif there is any attempt to reappropriate after a par-pany. To vitiate the policy there must be knowticular vessel has already been declared, it will be a ledge that the risk insured against was terminated. fraud on the underwriters. In some shape or other It was not known that any risk on the ship Red the appropriation must be so made that the vessel Gauntlet had been taken by the Hong Kong Comshall, in the interval between appropriation and pany. Then it was said by Mr. Bovill that the declaration, be covered by the policy. Every object ship was not declared, and that therefore the is satisfied the moment it is settled that the parties policy did not attach. The contract is, that the have appropriated and the declaration thereof is defts. will insure, and the plts. engage to declare made to the underwriters at the reasonably earliest the ship. That can only mean that the assured is period. I am glad to find that our view accords to declare in what ship the Hong Kong Company with that laid down in Mr. Arnould's treatise on have a risk exceeding 50007. The appropriation is Marine Insurance. On these grounds I think our the thing done in Calcutta. The taking of the judgment must be for the plts. risk and the policy attached upon the appropriation. The declaration is of an appropriation made abroad. The defts. could not, in my opinion, have defeated the policy if they had known that the risk insured against, as well as the ship, had been lost. CROMPTON J.-I am of the same opinion. The real construction is, that this policy was intended to follow the former one between these parties, and the object was to cover the excess beyond 50007. which the Hong Kong Company might insure in any particular ship. They show that it was intended to keep on renewing this arrangement from time to time. It was intended to give the plts. all the rights under the new policies which they had under former policies. The main question in the case is, whether this policy attached, and whether the declaration was made in time. I do not agree with that part of Mr. Lush's argument in which he said that it was meant that the risk should attach on all the ships in their order; but I think that when the risk was appropriated to any particular ship by the company abroad, the policy attached. Whether that is so or not, I think the appropriation here was communicated in good time. My Lord Chief Justice has pointed out during the argument that the whole voyage would not be covered by the construction contended for by Mr. Bovill. I take what was intended to be this: .. You may apply the policy to any risk you please. but you must be bound by the appropriation you make when communicated to us in London. In one sense it is a positive condition, and it means that the appropriation is to be declared in London according to the instructions from abroad." I adopt Lord Ellenborough's view that the naming of what it is to which the policy is to attach is a power given to the assured, and that it may be exercised at any time so long as there is no fraud. There is nothing here to show that that power was taken away when the declaration was made. The plts. therefore are entitled to judgment. MELLOR, J.-I am of the same opinion. The nature of the contract was, on the part of the defts.. to protect themselves against a double appro priation of the risk. and, on the part of the Hong Kong Company, to protect themselves against any excess beyond 50007. insured by them on goods in any particular ship. The loss of the ship is not the risk insured against, but the excess beyond the 5000, and in that view the knowledge of the loss of the ship is not material. I entirely agree in what my brothers have said, and I will not travel over the same ground again. This was a cause of damage in which the vessel was arrested on Aug. 15, and continued in arrest until Nov. 26, when the cause was tried and dismissed with costs. Upon application on behalf of the plt. the Court ordered the vessel to remain in arrest, as the plt. declared his intention to appeal against the sentence. After twelve days, however, he gave notice of his intention to abandon the appeal, and the vessel was accordingly released. Deane, Q. C., for the deft., now moved to condemn the plt. in damages occasioned by the wrongful detention. Clarkson contra. Dr. LUSHINGTON.-This case is indeed one of great hardship to the deft., as his vessel has been several months under arrest for alleged misconduct, of which he has been proved to be innocent. I do not remember an application like the present to have been hitherto made, but I think it right that the plt. should pay for the damages occasioned by the twelve days' wrongful detention. The parties being unable to agree as to the amount of loss incurred, SHEE, J.-I am of the same opinion. The defts., by a contract of the 19th March, have undertaken to insure the excess of risk above 5000/., which the the registrar and merchants to report thereon. Hong Kong Company may have on goods in any particular ship. The Red Gauntlet, which had been insured by the Hong Kong Company for a risk above 5000, was one of that class of ships. On [MARI. CAS.-VOL. II.] The COURT ordered that the matter be referred to L ADM.] THE ZEPHYR THE UNIAO VENCEDORA (otherwise GIPSY). Feb. 16 and March 1, 1864. (Before the Right Hon. Dr. LUSHINGTON.) THE ZEPHYR. Liability for damage-Vessel and freight insufficient- If the value of the deft.'s vessel and freight be not equal Quare, whether a personal action can be combined with a real action already commenced. The plt. in this cause, Mr. Henry Teasdel, owner of the steam-tug Emperor, sued for damages occasioned by a collision between that vessel and the brig Zephyr. The action was entered for 7001., and the Zephyr was arrested. The Zephyr being a vessel of eighty-nine tons, the liability of her owners, as limited by the 54th section of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, to 8. per ton, would extend to 7127. if damage to that amount were proved. Her full value was, however, found to be only 400, for which bail was given. This last sum being all that could be recovered by the present proceedings in rem, Deane, Q.C., on behalf of the plt., now moved the court for leave to amend the præcipe to institute the cause by inserting therein the names of the owners of the Zephyr, so as to make them personally defts.. and for a citation in personam against them. The application is novel, but unless some remedy of the nature prayed be given, the plt. would have no alternative but to commence another action in this court, or one of the courts of common law, for any sum to which he might be entitled over and above the 4007. Clarkson contra.-The application is both novel and improper. The plt. has no right to assume what we deny, viz., that the damage done exceeds the amount for which bail has already been given. Dr. LUSHINGTON.-I have only known of one instance in which a personal action has been engrafted on a suit in rem. There is some difficulty in altering the præcipe as prayed, and such a course appears to the court unnecessary, inasmuch as the 15th section of the Admiralty Court Act 1861, gives the court power to effect the object with which the motion has been made. That section (a) puts decrees of the Court of Admiralty upon the same footing as judgments in the Superior Courts of common law, and gives a remedy as well against the ships and goods arrested as against the person of the judgment-creditor. If, therefore, the occasion should arise, a monition might issue to compel the owners of the Zephyr to pay the amount of damages not covered by the bail bond. Motion rejected. (a) The following is the section referred to: All decrees and orders of the High Court of Admiralty, whereby any sum of money, or any costs, charges, or expenses shall be payable to any person, shall have the same effect as judgments in the Superior Courts of common law, and the persons to whom any such moneys or costs, charges, or expenses, shall be payable, shall be deemed judgment-creditors, and all powers of enforcing judgments possessed by the Superior Courts of common law, or any judge thereof, with respect to matters depending in the same courts, as well against the ships and goods arrested as against the person of the judgment-debtor, shall be possessed by the said Court of Admiralty with respect to matters therein depending, and all remedies at common law possessed by judgment-creditors shall be in like manner possessed by persons to whom any moneys, costs, charges, or expenses are by such orders or decrees of the said Court of Admiralty directed to be paid. [ADM. April 19 and 21, and May 3, 1864. master. Semble, if an extreme necessity existed for the sale of a British vessel at a foreign port, the British viceconsul at the port might, if the master neglected to sell, sanction the sale, which would then be valid notwithstanding the absence of the master's consent. The facts of this case sufficiently appear from the judgment. Brett, Q. C. and E. C. Clarkson appeared for the plts.; Deane, Q. C. and V. Lushington for the defts. Dr. LUSHINGTON.-This British ship of eighty-five tous was sold at Terceira on the 31st Jan. 1861 without the direct authority of the owners. She passed into the hands of the purchasers, and was sold again, and since such sale she has come into this country, and is arrested by the former owners, who allege that the sale was illegal and did not divest their title. The law upon this question is, I apprehend, entirely settled, and I am not about to discuss it. The sale is valid, if a prudent sale and under an existing necessity, for, assuming that the sale was with the master's consent, and to be for the benefit of his owners, it would nevertheless not be valid unless there existed a necessity for the sale. The first inquiry therefore is, was there the necessity? But there is also a subordinate question. Was the sale effected with the consent of the master, against his consent, or did he remain neuter? It would be rather a startling proposition that such a sale could be valid against the consent of the master; but I am not prepared to say that under circumstances it might not be so: an overruling necessity admits of no law. No one can say what may be the circumstances which will constitute a case of necessity, some, however, may be stated: First, that the ship cannot, save at a ruinous cost, be repaired in the place where she is; secondly, that even if the repairs can be done at a cost not destructive to the interests of the owners, the master has not the means of so doing without a delay equally injurious to his owners; thirdly, that if he has such means he must be without the power of reasonable communication with his owners, i. e. such means of giving them notice as would not expose their property to imminent risk in the meantime, for I think it cannot be successfully maintained that imminent risk of a total loss should be incurred on the bare possibility of an ultimate repair of the ship. [The Court then examined the evidence in the cause, and held that, upon the facts of the case, there existed such a necessity as justified the sale. The Court then proceeded.] It now becomes necessary to consider the conduct of the master with reference to this sale. Mr. Read asserts that the master consented to the sale; the master on the contrary swears that he objected to it. The master also swears that he was carried to the hospital and was under medical treatment for five clearly appears from the evidence, especially that of weeks, three of which he was bedridden; but it the lodging-house keeper, that he never was in the hospital at all. But what was the conduct of Mr. Read? Now, Mr. Read was, and had been for many years, vice-consul at Terceira, and it was his duty to render assistance to British vessels in distress, and especially where the master and mate were so seriously injured as they themselves repre sented. Mr. Read states the steps he took in the ADM.] THE BLOOMER-Re THE EXTRADITION OF JOHN C. BENNETT. [ADM. execution of his duty. He advised that a survey should be made of the vessel, and that there should be English as well as Portuguese surveyors. The survey states that the vessel is entirely without prow, without bulwarks, with her sides smashed and leaking, without bowsprit, her foremast and the cross-jack broken and nearly all her rigging spoilt; and that all these damages proceeding from the effects of the gale on the 26th inst., are of such a nature that the vessel cannot repair at Terceira, owing to insufficient resources. Now, I have not heard one word of argument calculated to convince me that this is not a correct survey; and this being so, which is the more probable statement, that of Mr. Read, that the master assented to the sale of the vessel, or the master's representation to the contrary? What did the master propose to do, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF where to find money, how to do the repairs? What ADMIRALTY. was to be done in the interval? There is no inti- Reported by R. D. BENEDICT, Proctor and Advocate in Admiralty. mation that he said one word upon these matters, and it appears to me contrary to all probability that the captain should declare an intention of pursuing any other course. But I will assume for a moment that the captain might not have given his consent, and that considering the state in which the master and mate were, Mr. Read had acted in carrying out the sale without authority from the master. Then I say Mr. Read would have been justified, and I think the sale would have been valid if a case of extreme necessity were proved, for it never can be supposed that the law would require the property of British subjects to be sacrificed without reasonable cause. Looking at all the facts of the case, and looking at the law, as I understand it to be, I think the fair result is, that the plts. who have endeavoured to obtain possession of the vessel from the person who derived his title from the sale cannot succeed. I hold that the sale was valid, and I must dismiss this action with costs. Karslake (of the Chancery bar) and Pritchard (with him), on behalf of the receivers, was stopped by the Court, who called upon The Queen's Advocate (Tristram with him) contra. Dr. LUSHINGTON.-I have no doubt as to the course to be followed in this case. The hand of the court must be taken off the cargo to enable the In decree of the Court of Ch. to be executed. making a decree to that effect I do not stop the suits already instituted in this court, and I give no decision as to the priority of the various liens that may attach upon the freight. No costs. Monday, Aug. 29, 1864. (Before the Right Hon. Dr. LUSHINGTON.) THE BLOOMER. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. (Before Commissioner C. W. NEWTON.) Re THE EXTRADITION OF JOHN C. BENNETT (under the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, for the killing or maiming of John West on the high seas, on board a British barque). Extradition-Murder on the high seas. Under the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain Murder on the high seas on board a British vessel is not The accused, John C. Bennett, was brought before the Commissioner on a claim of extradition, he being charged with the murder of one John West on board the British brig Raymond, while on the high seas, bound to the port of New York. The Ch.-evidence left no doubt of the killing. Freight-Receiver appointed by the Court of After the evidence was closed the prisoner's counsel urged his discharge on the authority of a Ternan and others, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 499) recent case decided by the Court of Q. B. (Re For the British Government F. F. Marbury; for the prisoner H. S. Smith. On the 9th June a bill was filed in the Court of Ch. by Messrs. Halliday, Fox and Co., of London, The COMMISSIONER rendered the following demerchants, claiming a lien upon the homeward cision:-Assuming that the case presented comes freight of the Bloomer, for advances made to the within the treaty of the 9th Aug. 1842, between the defts. in respect of the freight. Under that bill an United States and Great Britain, I am clearly of the order of the 27th July was, upon an appeal motion, opinion that the facts developed on the examination made by the Lords Justices, whereby they granted would warrant me in committing the accused for an injunction, and ordered that receivers of the extradition under the treaty. The evidence refreight should be appointed, and on the 3rd Aug.,ceived, to my mind, is clear and uncontradicted that in chambers, before Stuart, V. C.; Messrs. Burn the accused, through violence, caused the death of and Ainley were accordingly appointed receivers. the coloured man West on board the British brig On the same day, and before the receivers were in Raymond, whilst on the high seas, and no successful possession, a cause of wages was instituted in the attempt on the part of the accused has been made to Admiralty Court against the freight only by the justify the act. Even admitting that evidence of master of the Bloomer, and in that suit, on the 4th, justification could be legally received-of which, the cargo was, by warrant from the court, arrested however, under the treaty I have great doubt-it is for the freight. not for me to determine what effect it might or might not have upon the mind of a jury on a final hearing or trial for murder. Under the treaty I am only to determine the question of probable cause. The simple question here to be decided is, whether there is sufficient probable cause to justify his return for trial to the country within whose jurisdiction A. other action was also entered on behalf of the seamen for their wages. The court was now moved on behalf of the receivers to decree a release of the freight arrested in the master's action, and it was agreed that the same question in the seamen's action should abide the result of this application. ADM.] HAMILTON E. TOWLE . THE GREAT EASTERN. | the crime is charged to have been committed. The question, however, is raised as to whether this case does not come within the principles of law laid down in a recent case under the treaty, decided in the Court of Q. B., in the matter of Ternan and others, prisoners in the gaol of Liverpool, who were discharged by that court upon a writ of habeas corpus issued on their behalf. It is contended that the principles involved in that case are analogous to those arising in the case under consideration. It appears that the prisoners in the case referred to were arrested and detained under the treaty as pirates, and their extradition demanded by our Government. The opinions of the learned justices of the court in that case are certainly entitled to very great respect and consideration, and though their decisions are not absolutely binding upon me in determining the case under consideration, I should certainly feel bound to give great weight to their unbiassed adjudication upon the principles of law therein passed upon, were the same questions involved in the case before me; but upon a careful analysis of the decision rendered in that case, I am at a loss to discover wherein the principles therein enunciated are in the least applicable, or can in any wise govern or control the present case. The learned justices of the Q. B., in that case, as I understand it, decided that the crimes for which extradition can be demanded under the treaty must have been committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the power which demands the extradition; while crimes committed within the concurrent jurisdiction of both powers are not covered by the treaty-that the crime with which the prisoners in the case before them were charged was piracy by the law of nations, which is punishable wherever the offender may be found, and was not, therefore, committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; that the piracy which is especially named in the treaty is not piracy by the law of nations, but that other class of offences which are declared to be piracy by statute. Admitting, therefore, the full force and correctness of the decision in the Court of Q. B., I am unable to determine wherein the principles therein determined can in any way change the interpretation which has been universally given by our courts and Government to the treaty in cases of murder on the high seas. It cannot, in my judgment, be legally claimed that murder on the high seas, when committed on board a British vessel, is within the concurrent jurisdiction of both the United States and Great Britain, and unless that position can be sustained, the assumed analogy most certainly falls. In the case under consideration the crime charged and proved is murder on the high seas, on board the British brig Raymond, and I have not been able to find any adjudication, either in this country or in England, holding that there is a concurrent jurisdiction in such cases; all of the authorities upon this point agree, and I am compelled, therefore, to determine that the crime charged was committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. It has always been the policy of this Government to place the most liberal construction upon all her treaty stipulations with foreign states; and whenever it has been clearly establishel that a crime has been committed against a foreign state, which comes within our treaty stipulations, we have ever shown a readiness to surrender the criminal to justice-and justice certainly can be as fairly and impartially administered in the country within whose exclusive jurisdiction the offence has been committed, as within the asylum or country to which he may have fled. Ever sensitive as our Government is to the protection of its own citizens, it never will, I trust, assume, against treaty stipulations, to become the guardian and protector of escaped and fleeing crimi [ADM. nals, when legally demanded. Assuming the truth of the position of the counsel for accused, that the British Government did, in that case, unfairly and illegally intervene to prevent the extradition of criminals when demanded by our Government. I cannot see that it would follow by any process of reasoning, or on any principle of law or justice (except it be that of retaliation), that we should be swerved from that high and honourable position as a nation which we have ever maintained, in carrying out treaty stipulations toward foreign Governments. I am, however, most happy to say that upon a careful examination of the case decided in the Court of Q. B. I am unable to discover any disposition upon the part of the learned justices delivering the opinions to render any interpretation of the treaty inconsistent with their heretofore high legal standing, or with that of the opinions of our ablest jurists. Applying, therefore the principles announced in that case to the one under consider-ation, I am not at a loss to determine as to the right or duty of granting the certificate. I shall therefore grant the certificate of extradition, and in the meantime the accused must stand committed to await the action of the Executive in the matter. 4 passenger can render salvage services to the vessel on board which he is a passenger, though his relation of passenger still continues: But such services must be of an extraordinary character. and beyond the line of his duty, to render him a salvor. Pumping and aiding in working a ship by usual and well-known means, would not be extraordinary services. The Great Eastern, having disabled her paddle-wheels, and broken her rudder shaft in a gale, lay in the trough of the sea for about thirty-six hours, during which time the officers of the ship had endeavoured in vain to repair the damage. The libellant, a passenger va board, then, with the consent of the captain of the skip. undertook to put in execution a plan which he hoo devised for steering the ship himself, superintended the work, and succeeded in remedying the difficulty, so that the vessel was brought out of the trough of the set. and came into port in safety: Held, that these services were extraordinary services for which the court would award salvage compensation to him. The facts of the case need not be separately stated, as they are fully set forth in the opinion. For libellant were, G. F. Curtis and Hall; and for claimants Evarts, Southmayd and Choate. SHIPMAN, J.-On the 10th Sept., 1861, the steamship Great Eastern left Liverpool for New York, with about four hundred passengers and a considerable cargo, together with about four hundred persons as officers and crew, including engineers, firemen, servants, &c. She was, as is well known, the largest ship that ever floated the sea, and was of great value. Her original cost was very large, but owing. ADM.] HAMILTON E. TowLE . THE GREAT EASTERN. to her great draft of water and unwieldy proportions, which limited in many directions her general usefulness as an instrument of commercial enterprise, it is difficult to state her exact value at the time the events occurred upon which this suit is founded. But from the evidence before this court, it is safe to conclude that she was at that time worth more than half-a-million of dollars. Beyond this, her value is not important for the purposes of this case. Among her passengers on this voyage was the libellant in this suit. On Thursday, the 12th Sept., two days after the ship left Liverpool, and about two hundred and eighty miles west of Cape Clear, she encountered a heavy storm, which did great damage to, and finally swept away, her paddle-wheels | and several of her boats. Her screw, or propeller, however, remained substantially uninjured, and by this she could make very good headway, when under steam. During the evening or night of the 12th, she fell off into the trough of the sea, and rolled with such violence as to carry from side to side of the ship all the moveable objects on her decks and in her cabins. Much of her furniture was broken up and destroyed, several of her crew and passengers injured, and a great part of the luggage of the latter was drenched and crushed into a mass of worthless rubbish. The immense size of the ship rendered her motions, when rolling in the trough of a heavy sea, much more dangerous and destructive than those of a ship of ordinary dimensions. During the night it was discovered that her ruddershaft, which was large, and of wrought iron, had been twisted off below all the points of connection with the stearing gear. The ship, therefore, lay helpless in the trough of the sea, rolling heavily with every swell. Her sails were blown away in a subsequent attempt to control her movements by them, and no means were left by which her head could be brought up, and her position on the sea changed. She was as unmanageable as if her rudder had been entirely gone. The only way, therefore, to get any control of the motions of the ship, was to secure some kind of efficient steeringgear by attaching it to the rudder-shaft below the, point of fracture, and connecting it with the wheel. This was a work of considerable danger, and of great difficulty. It was, however, finally done, and the ship was again got under control, taken out of the trough of the sea, and steered safely back to port. The libellant claims that he devised and executed the plan of this new steering-gear, and the means by which it was made available, and that the ship was thus saved from great peril chiefly through his instrumentality. To recover compensation, in the nature of salvage, for this service, he has brought this suit. Before passing to the questions of law which have been raised and discussed on this trial, I will state the facts which I hold to be proved by the evidence. In doing this I shall not detail the evidence further than may be necessary to enable me to state my own conclusions. 1. The ship was brought into a condition of great peril by the breaking of her ruddershaft in the afternoon, or during the night, of the 12th. In consequence of this accident she fell off into the trough of the sea and there lay in a help less condition. The storm was very violent during Thursday night, but began to abate on Friday morning, and had, in the main, ceased on Saturday evening. But the ground-swell continued, and kept the ship rolling more or less until about five o'clock on Sunday evening, when her head was brought up, and she was started on her course. During all this time she lay drifting on the waves, every attempt to get control of her rudder, or rig other steering apparatus, having failed. It requires no argument, and little evidence beyond what the common history of the sea furnishes, to prove that this immense and [ADM. unwieldly ship, on the ocean, nearly three hundred miles from land, with eight hundred souls on board, in this disabled and helpless condition, was in great danger and exposed to numerous perils. 2. Between Friday morning and Saturday afternoon the officers of the ship had made repeated attempts to get control of her motions. It is not necessary to detail these experiments. It is sufficient to say that they all proved fruitless. Finally, the chief engineer commenced unscrewing a large nut on the rudder shaft. This nut was on that part of the shaft which was below the upper deck, and in an apartment on the deck below at the stern of the ship. This apartment has been termed, in this case, the steerage-deck. The rudder-shaft passed up through it. On the shaft within this steerage-deck was the frustum of a ribbed iron cone, through the centre of which the shaft passed. The base of this cone rested on iron balls, the balls running in a circular groove sunk in an iron plate fastened to the deck, which constituted the floor of the apartment. The cone was fastened to the shaft firmly by appropriate means, so that they revolved together, as if one piece of iron. On the rudder shaft, at the top of the cone, was a large nut, the one already referred to, which was screwed down firmly on the head of the cone. This nut, it will thus be seen, kept the cone down to its proper position, so that the base was made to traverse on the balls, and the cone and nut formed, together, a head or collar which contributed to support the weight of the rudder and shaft. The rudder shaft had broken off at or near the top of this nut. The last attempted experiment of the chief engineer was to unscrew this nut, with the design to secure, if possible, a tiller up on the end of the broken shaft, and thus, with the aid of the wheel in the steerage deck, to steer the ship. He had partly unscrewed the nut, though it was a work of considerable difficulty, as the nut and shaft turned by every blow of the sea on the rudder blade, when the libellant learned the fact. The latter regarded the nut as a very important means of supporting the rudder and the shaft, and looked upon its removal with alarm, on the ground that, if this support were removed, it might lead to a total loss of the rudder. He communicated his fears to the captain of the ship, and the engineer was ordered to desist. It is impossible to tell what would have been the result of this experiment, had it been carried out, although by unscrewing the nut an inch the rudder fell half that distance; but it appears from the testimony of one of the witnesses that the engineer did not expect to be able to fit the tiller to the end of the broken shaft under three or four days. The captain seemed now to have lost confidence in the chief engineer's ability to restore the control of the rudder. His own efforts had failed. Attempts had been made to control by winding chains round the cone on the shaft and connecting them with tackles fixed to the ship's sides, to be worked by men at each end. This failed. A spar was rigged over the stern of the ship as a temporary means of steering, and that also failed. Sails had been hoisted to change her position, but had been blown to pieces. It is evident, from the testimony, that after the captain had arrested the unscrewing of the nut, both he and his officers had exhausted their expedients for getting control of the rudder so as to steer the ship, and bring her up out of the trough of the swell. The situation of the ship and the persons on board of her was now such as might well alarm the most accomplished and intrepid navigator, and lead him to welcome any aid which gave any hope of relief, especially when it proposed no experiment which could involve the ship in new dangers. 3. The libellant is a civil and mechanical engineer, regularly educated for his profession, and, prior to taking secure |