134, EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS I VOL. XV. BRITISH COLUMBIA ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. 1912 LETSON June 19. PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE SHIP T ULADI. Shipping—Action for necessaries—Admiralty Practice—Affidavit to lead Warrant —Rule 89---Discretion of Registrar—Review. Where the Registrar has exercised his discretion under Rule 39 to dispense with some of the prescribed particulars in an affidavit to lead warrant for the arrest of the ship in an action in rem for necessaries, the Court will not review such discretion. M OTION in an action in rem for necessaries to discharge warrant for arrest of ship. The ground upon which the application was made was that the affidavit to lead warrant did not contain all the particulars required • by Rules 35, 36 and 37 of the Admiralty Practice, and that, therefore, the Deputy District Registrar at Vancouver had no authority to issue the warrant. W. J. Taylor, K.C., for the motion. A. D. Macfarlane, contra. MARTIN, L. J. now (June 19th, 1912) delivered judgment. These rules bear a close similarity to the corresponding English rules, Order V., Rules 16 and 17, but there is this important distinction, viz.: that while in England the power to dispense with "all the required particulars" is reserved for "the Court or a judge", in this Court the Registrar has the like power, rule 39 providing that :
VOL.. XV: J EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 135 " 39. The Registrar, if he thinks fit, may issue a, 19 12 " warrant, although the affidavit does not contain all LET5oN ?l. " the prescribed particulars, and in an action for TH 3 SHI P Tvi.ADI. " bottornry, although the bond has not been produced, Reasons for " or he may refuse to issue a warrant without the order Judgment. " of the judge." The affidavit here does not state the national char- acter of the ship, or that the aid of the Court is required. The first omission is of importance, the latter is almost a matter of inference; in other respects I think the affidavit is sufficient. Were it not for Rule 39, I should have thought that as a whole there had not been a substantial compliance with the rules, but I see no • escape from the fact that the Registrar has, for reasons which must be assumed to be valid, and which are not required to be disclosed on the record, "thought fit" to dispense with some of the prescribed particulars, and in such circumstances I cannot perceive in what respect I am entitled to review the exercise of that discretion any more than I should be udder the English rule. I may say that I have searched carefully for any decisions which would throw light on the subject, as it is of much practical importance, but have been unable to find one. The motion must be dismissed, with costs, payable to the plaintiff in any event. Order accordingly. •
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.