THE TWO MAKYS. 921 �whieh was that Hawkins was taken away under arrest by a police officer. The keeper of the marshal left the vessel with Crowley aboard. �Upon a subsequent hearing before this court the marshal was ordered to retake possession, on the ground that the process had not been properly executed, (see 10 Ben.) and a reference was ordered to inquire into Hawkins' interest as above stated. Subsequently, on February 12, 1880, Crowley, who was the owner of one-sixteenth and intervened as claimant, gave a bond in the sum of $7,000 to Hawkins for the safe retum of the vessel, and was allowed bythe court there- upon to receive possession from the marshal. Before the present hearing Crowley died, and subsequent proceedings were had, upon notice to bis administratrix and the stipulators on his bond. �The libel was filed on the twenty-fifth of January, 1879, for sup- plies and materials furnished to the schooner in this, her home port. She was at that time in the ship-yard of Hawkins, undergoing re- paire. The process was served upon the vessel and upon Hawkins, but possession was not taken by the marshal. The libellant was at that time owner of five-sixteenths, and the object of filing the libel was shown to be to facilitate his acquiring the interests of the other owners who had dissented to the repairs whioh the libellant had ordered to be made, and which were then going on in Hawkins' ship- yard ; while Crowley, the owner of one-sixteenth, was acting in con- cert with the libellant. Shortly after the libel was filed, the libel- lant obtained a transfer of the interests of all the other owners for a small sum, except that of one Wheaton, of Philadelphia, the owner of one-sixteenth, who had also protested against the repairs, and who has not intervened in this suit. Hawkins was notiued of the inten- tion of McLean to file a libel, and of his purpose in doing so, — to facilitate the completion of the repairs and of rebuilding, as desired. The work was substantially proceeded with by Hawkins, at the libel- lant's request, and the vessel launched on August 27th, Her seizure by the marshal on the sixteenth of September was made without prior notice to Hawkins, while some work still remained to be done upon her, and seems to have been designed as a means of eutting off any claim of Hawkins to the possession of her. There was no other per- son asserting any opposing claim. It is upwards of three years since the action was commenced, and there is no other controversy than that with Hawkins. �The reference and the testimony on it involve substantially all the merits upon Hawkins' side of the case, and a large mass of testimony ��� �
