THE TWO MAEYS. 92I �ished. During this time Lawrence usually slept on board the schooner as she lay in the stream, as he had dons when she was on the ways. Capt. Crowley and his son were also more or less aboard. On sev- eral occasions, however, when Capt. Crowley had undertaken some interference, he had been ordered by Hawkins to desist, and he was forbidden to go aboard the-vessel if he undertook any interference. Crowley swears that after she was launched Hawkins put her in his possession. Hawkins denies it; he swears that he never surren- dered her. Hawkins' account of the matter is, I think, clearly sus- tained by the letter of McLean, written Septemher 10, 1879, in which he says: "Please be sure and bring her [the schooner] down to-day or to-morrow, and bring your bill with you. It is too bad to keep her lying still now. You need not be afraid of your money ; you can have security for every dollar that is due you. " This letter, written two weeks after the launch, with the urgent request to bring thevessel down to thecity, with his bill, and the assurance that Haw- kins would have security for every dollar that was due him, f urnishes to my mind conelusive evidence that the parties all understood that the vessel was still in Hawkins' possession and under his control, as much so as when lying on the ways in his yard; and that they knew that Hawkins looked to the possession of her as a security for his claim. Except for this, there was no reason why McLean should assure him that he should have security upon bringing the vessel down. Nor even aside from his letter should I be disposed to hold that Haw- kins' possessory lien was lost at the time of the seizure by the mar- shal. The vessel lay in the stream, immediately adjacent to his yard. She was placed there by his direction in the ordinary course of completing the repairs which he was employed to make ; the re- pairs were not completed, and Lawrence' s presence was not different from his presence at the yard; and the presence of Capt. Crowley and his son, more or less, was evidently by the sufferance of Haw- kins only, and with no intention of surrendering the vessel to their control, or waiving his possessory rights. His possession was a con- tinuance of that which he had previously held in the yard, for the purpose of completing the work upon which he was engaged. The presence of the other persons on board was not incompatible with it, and therefore did not change or determine Hawkins' previous pos- session, unless it were so understood and intended. That McLean did not so uuderstand is plain from his letter above quoted. When ��� �
