VOL. TX. j EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS..-361 QUEBEC ADMIRALTY DISTRICT MORTON DOWN & COMPANY, 1905 LIMITED ..,.. PLAINTIFFS. March 24. AGAINST S.S. "LAKE SIMCOE," AND OWNERS... DEFENDANTS.. Security for costs —Admiralty Rule n8— English practice—Application made by defendant afterplaintiffiles particulars of claim. Under the provisions of Rule 228 of the General Rules and Orders regulating the practice and procedure in Admiralty Cases in the Exchequer Court of Canada applying the English practice to cases not provided for by such riles, an order for security for costs may he granted in Admiralty proceedings on motion of the defendant after the plaintiff has filed particulars of his statement of claim. THIS was an action.in rem taken against the SS. Lake Simcae: The action was upon a claim for43,718.14 being a balance of cash supplied for necessaries, repairs, . and other disbursements to the. ship SS. Lake Simcàe at the Port of Montreal, on the 26th day of July, and • the 5th day of August, 1904, and for costs. • - The action was instituted on the 26th September; 1904, and accompanying the writ was a warrant • • issued for the arrest of the ship SS. Lake Sircoe. The writ and warrant were duly executed on the date of issue and were . returned into .court and filed by Mr. W. S. Walker, Deputy•District Registrar 'of the court, on the 27•th September. The owners of the Lake . Simcoe gave bail for the amount, and4the ship was then released. The bail was given on the , .29th September, and the release took • place on the 5th October. On the 12th December, the Lake Simeoe and the owners thereof, the defendants in. the action, gave
362 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. LX. 1905 notice of application to the court that they would move DOWN & Co. for an order directing the plaintiffs to file pleadings ss. L AKE herein and file a statement of particulars of claim within SIMCOE. a week from the date of the order setting out the causes Mtatemen of Facto. andr b o unds of action,and the nature of their claim. This application was granted, and as the plaintiffs failed to furnish the necessary particulars within the time allowed by the order, the defendants made a motion to have the action dismissed. The motion came on for hearing before the Local Judge in Admiralty for the district of Quebec. The plaintiffs made application to file their written statement of claim. The court gave defendants the costs of the motion, but allowed the statement of claim to be filed On the 6th March, the defendants made a further motion for particulars of the statement of claim. This motion was also granted, and on the 21st March, the plaintiffs filed particulars of their statement of claim. Immediately after the said particulars had been filed, the defendant moved the court asking that the plaintiffs be ordered to give security for the payment of the costs in the action. March 24th, 1900. The motion for security for costs was now argued. C. A. Duclos, K.C., fbr the plaintiffs, opposed the motion on the ground that the defendants were beyond the legal delays to file such a motion, and that it should have heen made within three days after their appearance had been filed, arguing that the procedure to be followed in cases before the Admiralty court arising in the district of Quebec must be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for Lower Canada. He cited Article 164 of the Code of Procedure in support of his argument.
VOL. IX. J EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 363 Claude Hickson for defendants, cited the General 1905 Rules and Orders regulating the practice and procedure DOWN & Co.. in Admiralty cases in the Exchequer Court of Canada. ss. LAKE He argued that in those rules and orders no provi- sI„ooE' lion was made for the application for security for costs , . éGo,:nsei or the filing of a power of attorney. He cited Admiralty Judgment. Rule No. 228, in which it is provided that in all cases not specially dealt with in. the practice and procedure in the Admiralty cases in the Exchequer Court of Canada, the procedure for the time being in force in respect to Admiralty proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England is to be followed, and argued that under the English procedure, an applica• tion for security for costs may be made at any time during the proceedings. He cited Roscoe's Admiralty Practice (I) ; and Order 65, Rule 6, ând 6a. of the High Court of Admiralty, which provides that it is within the discretion of the Judge or Court to grant an application for security for costs at any time during the proceedings. Mr. Duclos replied. Per Curiam :—The plaintiffs will give security for costs within thirty days from the date hereof to the amount of $5000.00 ; costs of motion to follow the event. Order accordingly. (1) 3rd ed., part 4.
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.