MR. MITCHELL directed His Honour’s attention to the fact that he had said in his summing up that the certificates had nothing to do with the loading, whereas, in giving the certificates, the surveyors did so on the assumption that the vessel might go to sea without cargo. If there was a condition as to cargo, it would be mentioned in the certificate. Mr. Mitchell also contended that the defendants would not be liable unless the captain loaded the vessel in a way that, in his opinion, would make her unsea-worthy. HIS HONOUR: These both seem to be good points, and I will bring them before the jury to-morrow morning. [Illustration: Decoration] [Illustration: Decoration] KILPATRICK V. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD. NINTH DAY, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1895. HIS HONOUR, addressing the jury, said: Gentlemen, I told you yesterday, with respect to the charge that is made against the owners of the vessel, that you should disregard the certificate given when considering whether the vessel was loaded in such a way as to render her unsea-worthy. I don’t think I was quite right in saying that. I had forgotten that Mr. McLean, engineer surveyor to the Marine Board, told us that the certificate was for an unloaded ship. You cannot disregard that certificate altogether. Still you must bear this in mind, that though a vessel may, in the opinion of the Marine Board, be sea-worthy, the captain, or mate, may load her in such a way as to make her unsea-worthy. There is some evidence that the cargo put in her was built so high in the hold as to make her less stable than if it had been better stowed. I also told you that if the captain loaded the vessel in such a way as to render her unsea-worthy, the owners would be responsible. That is a little too bald. The owners are entitled to some protection in this respect, that is, unless the captain knew, or ought to have known, that the cargo was loaded in such a manner as to render her unsea-worthy. If he trims the ship in a way which he knows, or ought to know, will render the voyage risky and perilous, then the owners would be responsible. Gentlemen of the jury, you are to give your verdict for plaintiff, or defendants, but not your reasons. You may cause endless trouble if you do. The foreman of the jury asked whether there was any evidence as to the ballast tanks being filled. HIS HONOUR replied that the only shred of evidence on that point was that one of the tanks was stowed away in the forepeak. The jury retired at a quarter past 10 A. M., and at a quarter past 6 P. M. returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff for £600, allotting £500 to Mrs. Kilpatrick and £100 to the child. * * * * *