but defendants’ witnesses said the cargo did not make the slightest difference to her, so long as she was handled properly. A great deal had been said about the bunker lids, but there was no evidence to show that they got out of position, or that any water got through the bunker holes. This was a weak part of plaintiff’s case. As to the grating over the stoke-hole, the defendants averred that they had provided canvas to cover it, and it would be a hard thing to say that the defendants ever knew, or ought to have known, that the grating, unless protected by iron or wood, was such a danger as to render the ship unsea-worthy. The wooden awning had been condemned by some of the experts as unusual on a small ocean-going steamer. In the ordinary way, perhaps, such an awning would do no harm, but if the wind came to blow on the beam, the awning became a kind of fulcrum against which the wind pressed, and helped to heel the ship over. On the other hand, two of the witnesses for the defence had said that the effect of the awning would be contrary and would help to heave her stern up. Then there was the pantry window on which there had been such a tremendous onslaught. It was said that it was a source of danger to the ship, and supposing they (the jury) came to the conclusion that it rendered the vessel unsea-worthy, they would have to ask themselves the question, “Did that danger contribute to the foundering of the ship in this case?” They (the jury) must not only find that it was a source of danger, but they must also find that the defendants knew, or ought to have known, it was so, to the extent of making the ship unsea-worthy. He (His Honour) regretted very much that the witness Ponting had been attacked by Mr. Purves. The unfortunate man was the sole survivor of the wreck, and had spent the whole of that tempestuous night on the sea, and had done nothing to deserve being spoken ill of. Ponting had given his evidence in a proper manner, and appeared to be a decent sort of man; certainly not the kind of being Mr. Purves sought to make out. Mr. Purves had also said that Ponting had been saved by an act of Providence, but he (His Honour) did not know why Providence should have shown any more consideration for Ponting than for anyone else on board the ship. The man was, providentially no doubt, saved by his own perseverance and tenacity. If Ponting’s story was true, undoubtedly the pantry window did give way and the water poured in. If the jury found that the captain neglected his duty, they would have to find a verdict for the defendants. On the other hand, if they found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages, they would have to say how much they would apportion to the widow and how much to the child. In reply to His Honour the foreman of the jury said they would prefer to consider their verdict next day.