THB MABIEL. 881 �stinately refused to do, and the respondents were compelled to hire laborers to take tbeir places and perform their work in discharging the cargo. The respondents had a right to pursue this course and dednct the necessary sums paid these laborers from the libellants' wages. 1 Conk. 131. After the boat was nnloaded a tender was made to the libdlants of their •wages, lesB the reasonable sums paid the laborers who per- formed the libellants' work. The libellants refused the tender^ and subsequently filed their libel in this case. Upon aervice of process the respondents (under protest) paid to the marshal the amount claimed bj the libellants, and the eosts up to that time, and the marshal paid the money. into court. It would have been more regular had the respondents, under leave granted, paid the amount of wages tendered into court ai the time their answer was filed, in support of the tender set up in their answer. But, substantially, this was done, for the marshal had paid the money into court before answer filed> Under the proofs in the case, I am of opinion that the libel must be dismissed, with costs. ���Thb Mabiel. (IHstriet Court, 8. D. New York. January 18, 1881.) �1. PeACTICE— DlBHIBSAI. OP LiBEL— DbLAT APTBR IbSDB. �The practice of the court doea not authorize the dismissal of a libel for the libellant's delay in bringing the cause to a hearing after issue joined. The claimant bas an equal right to moTe the case. �Rules S. D. N. Y. 136, 123. �In Admiralty. �The libel was filed in 1866 for salvage, and issue was joined. Both parties noticed the cause for trial, and it wa& placed upon the calendar. It was reserved generally in 1870, and had not been moved again until 1 880. The claim- ants moved to dismiss the libel for failure to prosecute. ��� �
