coantry,  bat  I  am  qaite  sure  the  practice  has  been  to  admit
declarations  made  by  the  master,  while  in  command,  concerning
any  matters  which  came  ander  his  aathority  as  master,  though
not  part  of  any  res  gestce  strictly  speaking.
I  have  therefore  looked  at  the  testimony  of  the  master's
declarations,  made  before  any  lis  moiOy  and  bearing  in  mind
that  the  owners  have  not  called  him,  either  to  deny  or  explain
them,  and  considering  the  surrounding  circumstances,  as  well
as  the  direct  and  positive  evidence  which  is  applicable  to  the
contracts  of  three  of  them,  I  am  of  opinion  the  libellants  are
entitled  to  wages,  and  the  decrees  of  the  District  Court  in  both
cases  must  be  affirmed,  with  costs.  In  the  suit  in  personam
damages  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  should  be
added.  *

In  the  suit  in  rem^  numerous  technical  objections  were  taken
to  the  admissibility  of  the  depositions  sent  up  to  this  Court
from  the  District  Court  I  consider  these  depositions  to  have
been  taken  as  further  proof,  under  the  rule  of  the  Supreme
Court  on  that  subject  The  caption  rightly  describes  the  suit
as  pending  in  the  District  Court,  for  the  order  allowing  an
appeal  had  been  rescinded,  when  the  depositions  were  taken.
The  proctor  for  the  respondents  appears  to  have  had  all  the
notice  to  which  he  was  entitled,  and  the  depositions  were
began  on  the  day  named  in  the  notice,  and  finished  on  the
next  day.
