« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
BAXENDALE AND OTHERS v. TuE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY Co.
here as it was in Mors Le Blanch v. Wilson, whether default the liability has arisen." The default of it was reasonable to defend Harding's action at all, the defendants in this instance was the not carryand whether the defence was conducted reasonably. ing these pictures safely to Calais; but they My brother Lush perceives a distinction between thereby incurred no liability to Harding. The Nors Le Blanch v. IVilson and the present case, but I plaintiffs were the only persons who could sue the confess that I fail to see any difference in principle defendants, and they might, in an action against between them, and the learned counsel for the plain the latter, have recovered the value of the pictures tiffs was entitled in the court below, to rely strongly | notwithstanding that they (the plaintiffs) might on Mors Le Blanch v. Wilson, unless it be dis- have a good defence to an action at the suit of tinguishable, as has been suggested by my brother Harding. In what possible way, then, can the Lush, though the decision in that case was not at costs incurred by the plaintiffs in defending the all in my opinion a satisfactory one. I found my action brought against them by Harding be said judgment in the present case on the fact that the to be the consequence of the default of the defen. costs now sought to be recovered by the plaintiffs dants. The two things are entirely unconnected the are not the necessary result of the breach of con one with the other. The court below appears to have tract on the defendants' part, the two contracts thought it was reasonable conduct on the plaintiffs' being, as bas been before said, separate and inde part to have the amount of damages assessed in pendent contracts. For these reasons, then, I Harding's action. Probably it was so, and it was think that the judgment of the court below should also for tbeir benefit, though certainly not in any be reversed.
way for the benefit of the defendants, nor were LUSH, J.-I am of the same opinion, and think they in any way bound by that assessment of that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover these damages. It might be that Harding might have costs against the defendants, because they were recovered 3001. damages against the plaintiffs, and not the natural or necessary consequence of the yet the latter might have recovered 10001, against breach of contract by the defendants, nor were the defendants. A point was made and insisted they incurred at the request or for the benefit of on by the learned counsel for the defendants as to the defendants. The two contracts were entirely the difficulty which would be cast upon the different the one from the other, and were indepen plaintiffs if they were to be obliged, the moment dent of each other. The plaintiffs having contracted à claim were made upon them, with respect to with Harding to carry his pictures to Paris, instead goods consigned to them to be forwarded, to bring of carrying or conveying them thither themselves, an action instantly against the particular railway engaged the defendants to do so by another and company by whose line they had forwarded the goods independent contract, to which Harding, of whom That may be so, but it is a difficulty wb the defendants knew nothing, was a stranger. | from the great extent and intricate character The pictures were not within the provisions of the | of the plaintiffs' business, and their under. Carriers' Act. The contracts being separate and taking to carry goods and then forward them independent, it may be that the plaintiffs were | by other carriers, and cannot be considered liable to Harding upon their contract with him, in this court as in any way influencing the whilst the defendants were not liable to the legal relation between the parties. In the plaintiffs on the other contract between them, or | Court of Exchequer, the judgment below was vice versa. But be that as it may, the plaintiffs' based upon the authority of the decision of the remedy against the defendants was not controlled Court of Common Pleas in Mors le Blanch v. in any way by their liability to Harding. Upon Wilson ; but there is, in my opinion an, essential Harding bringing his action against the plaintiffs distinction between that case and the present case. the latter informed the defendants that they | In that case, it is material to observe that it was shonld hold them liable, to which the defendants found by the jury that it was a reasonable thing replied, declining and denying any liability on the for the plaintiffs to have the amount ascertained ground that the Carriers' Act protected them, which they would have to pay for demurrage. inasmuch as the pictures were delivered to them, Speaking for myself, I must say that I think, the defendants, as an ordinary parcel, unaccom- , though with much diffidence, that the decision in panied by a declaration of value or insurance; and that case was a correct one, because the amount of they also declined to give the plaintiffs any assistance demurrage ascertained in the first action would in the way of advice, suggestions, or instructions, be of necessity the measure of damages which the and left them to deal with the action in such way as defendants would be liable to pay in the second they, the plaintiffs, should think proper. This action, unless the facts were in any way conposition the defendants took and maintained troverted. I do not therefore think that, in deall through, from first to last, although they ciding as we do in the present case, we are, in were over and over again pressed upon the truth and substance, at all in conflict with the matter by the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in that plaintiffs defended the action, and defended it case. unsuccessfully, a verdict for 6501. damages being Quain, J.-There is no doubt that, if the present recovered against them. The plaintiff might have case had been one of a contract of indemnity, very brought an action against the railway company at different considerations would have arisen, and once, in which the damage done to the pictures the judgment of this court might have been in might have been ascertained. In delivering the favour of the plaintiffs, because in such a case, judgment of the court below my brother Cleasby though there may in point of form be two conis reported to have said, “This was one of those tracts, yet in substance these would be identical, cases in which a person incurred a liability in con- and there would in effect be only one, and that too sequence of the neglect or default of a third person would be known to each party. In such a case it in some duty which he owes to him, and wben he would be reasonable for the party sued to say to is brought into court himself, he has a right to the party who would be ultimately liable, "come expect to recover over against the person by whose lin and defend the action." Thus, in the case of a
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAIL. Co. v. SOMERSET AND Dorset Rail. Co.
surety, against whom an action is brought for the express or implied, to the plaintiffs to incur them, payment of the debt due from the principal, the for, on the contrary, they were holding the plainsurety may in all reason be justified in de-' tiffs at arms' length from the beginning to the fending such action at the cost of the prin. end of the case. Then comes the question whether cipal, or in calling on the latter to do so. | the plaintiffs were compelled to incur them by The cases, however, wbich have been cited on reason of any default on the part of the defendants; the present occasion are, with one exception, or, in other words, were they the natural and cases of indemnity, and such cases do not apply to necessary consequence of such default? In my a case like the present, where there were two sepa opinion they certainly were not. The contracts rate, distinct, and independent contracts, each con between the plaintiffs and Harding and the taining very different conditions and stipulations | plaintiffs and the defendants respectively were from the other of them. It would, I think, be wholly independent of each other, and the damages highly unreasonable were the court to hold the recovered by Harding against the plaintiffs were plaintiffs at liberty to impose on the defendants not necessarily the same as those which the plainagainst their consent, the costs of an action bronght | tiffs might recover against the defendants; nor by Harding upon a contract between him and the was it needful for the plaiutiffs that the damages plaintiffs to which contract the defendants were in Harding's case should be assessed in order to not parties, and of the terms of which they were enable the plaintiffs to recover against the dein entire ignorance, and with which they had no fendants. It might be rery prudent, and necesconcern whatever. But if it is not a case of a con sary even, for the plaintiffs, and for their benefit, tract of indemnity, is it one of proximate damage? that they should have the damages so assessed, This is not a case in which the relation of principal but it could in no shape be conclusive against the and surety exists; and the only ground on which defendants, because the two contracts were quite these costs could possibly be recovered by the distinct and independent. I confess that I am present plaintiffs is that they are the natural, unable to see any distinction between the present reasonable, and proximate consequence of the case and that of Mors Le Blanch v. Wilson defendants' breach of contract within the well (ubi sup.). My brother Lush, bowever, bas known rule laid down in the case of Hadley v. pointed out what, in his judgment, he conBaxendale (9 Ex. 341; 22 L. J. 179, Ex.). I am of siders to be one, though I am unable to see it opinion, however, that they do not and cannot myself. I cannot see why the damages assessed come within that rule; nor can I see the slightest | against the plaintiffs in that case furnished a con. connection between these costs and the defendants' clusive test or measure of those which they could breach of contract. If the defendants had under recover in the action against Wilson. The contaken to defend Harding's action, then, according tracts there, like those in the present case, were to the principle of the cases cited in the notes distinct and independent, and Mors Le Blanch to the case of Lampleigh v. Braithwait (ubi sup.), might have brought an action at once against an action for money paid, at request of the defen- / Wilson before he had himself been sued, which dants, might have been maintained. But, accord. I would have settled the question of demurrage; ing to the facts here, the defendants, from first to and so in the present case, the plaintiffs might last, declined to have anything to do with the at once have sued the defendants, who, if they had action, and repudiated all liability with respect to defended the action, would have done so at their it. Of all the cases cited on the part of the own peril, and the costs of ascertaining the valne plaintiffs, the only one that has any application to of the pictures would have fallen upon them. If The present case is that of Mors Le Blanch v. ) it is necessary for me to pronounce an opinion on Wilson (ubi sup.), and that is a case on the autho- | that case of Mors Le Blanch v. Wilson, I would say rity of which they were, I think, justified in rely that I think it is open to the same objection as the ing in the court below, nor can I see any distinc decision of the court below in the present case, tion between it and the present case. The which I am of opinion ought to be reversed for plaintiffs, the charterers in that case, upon action the reasons which have been given. brought by the shipowner, gave notice of
Judgment reversed. it to the defendants in order that they might Attorneys for the respondent plaintiffs, Uptons, defend the action; but, just as the defendants did | Johnson, Upton, and Budd. in the present case, the defendants there declined Attorney for the appellant defendants, T. C. to interfere in the matter. As here, too, there Church. were there two separate and independent contracts, and, with deference to the opinion of my COURT OF THE RAILWAY COM. brother Lush, I do not think that the assessment
MISSIONERS of damages against Mors Le Blanch, the charterer,
Reported by WILIAM Evans, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. in the first action was at all binding on or conclusive against the defendant Wilson in the second action, in which Wilson was at liberty to
Jan. 4, 5, and 8, 1875. set up a different defence. Sitting here, we are
THE BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY COMPANY . not bound by the authority of that case, which
THE SOMERSET AND DORSET RAILWAY COMPANY. seems to have been decided upon a mere dictum Failure of consideration-Application to set aside of Parke, B., in the case of Tindall v. Bell
agreement-Breaking ground. (11 M. & W.228, at p. 231; 12 L. J., N. S., 160, Ex. The S. Company having obtained power to make at p. 261), and I concur with my Lord Chief Justice the C. railway from y. to W., transfers the and my brother Keating in thinking that it was powers to the B. Company, which is at the same wrongly decided.
time authorised to run through and use the ARCHIBALD, J.--I also am of opinion that the station W. of the S. Company, so as to have free defendants are not liable to pay these costs. It communication with the E. S. R. The concannot be contended that they gave any authority, | sideration to be paid for these rights was fixed
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAIL. Co. v. SOMERSET AND DORSET RAIL. Co.
at 4001. per annum. This agreement to pay was easement they had never used and for services to take effect from the time that the B. Company which had never been rendered! It was true that should begin to break ground within six feet of the ground within the prescribed distance had been any of the sidings in the W. yard. Ground was broken, but even if the court should rule that broken in 1870:
thereby the agreement should be held in force, at Held, that the words “to break the ground” mean least by the same agreement the Bristol Com" to commence work," and do not include pre pany was entitled to compensation for the losses parations for the execution of work:
they had sustained by their inability to avail themHeld, further, that inasmuch as the payment of the selves of the advantages that were to accrue to rent was made to depend upon the happening of a tbem from that agreement. certain event, there was no room to modify the Field, Q.C. for the respondents.--The applicants agreement to pay, by a reference to considerations deny that either at law or in equity any rent was upon which payment was not dependent.
due by the original terms of the agreement, This was an application by the applicants to be because they had never as yet enjoyed the benefits released from the payment of a certain annual they were by the same agreement to receive for sum to the Somerset and Dorset Railway Com the rent. They had also laid considerable stress papy. The grounds of the application will be on the alleged fact that they had been debared seen from the arguments of counsel and the from these benefits by reason of the defective: judgment of the court.
nature of the plans which had been originally By an Act of Parliament passed in 1864, a line deposited before Parliament. But reference to of railway known as the Cheddar Valley Railway, the agreements will show that the rent was due, was authorised to be constructed from Yatton to that the applicants were acquainted with the posiWells, to which as it was likely to prove of assist and accomodation of the goods station at Wells, ance to the applicants in establishing communi- | for some time before the first deposit of plans. cation with East Somersetshire, they obtained They never had complained of these plans before power to subscribe 100,0001., and in 1865 took the the present application. Again the rent was whole business into their own hands, and with it claimed and again denied, on the ground that the all the rights, privileges, and powers belonging to primary object of removing those sidings was to the original company. At the same time an agree. effect the necessary crossing, and therefore did not ment was made between the two contending come under the sense implied in the words of the parties, by which the Bristol Company was bound agreement. But the primary object could not to pay to the Somerset Company an annual sum affect the actual fact that ground had been liter. of 4001. for the use of Wells Station and all ally broken, with what purpose was immaterial. servants and appliances there, in return for which The following judgment was delivered by the the former were to receive from the latter free CHIEF COMMISSIONER (Sir Frederick Peel). — In and unrestricted communication for all purposes 1864 the Somerset and Dorset Railway Company of traffic between Yatton and the East Somerset obtained powers from Parliament to make the line. Of this sum one half was to be considered Cheddar Valley Railway from Yatton to Wells, as payment for rent, the other for services ren In the following year the powers were transferred dered, and the agreement was to be held binding to the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, and from the time when the Bristol Company broke in order that there might be a free communication ground within six feet of the sidings of the at Wells between that railway and the East Somerset Company. In 1870 that ground had been Somerset Railway, the Bristol Company were broken according to the strict letter of the law. ¡ authorised to run through, as well as to use, the
Rodwell, Q.C. and Saunders for the applicants. intervening passenger station of the Somerset and The ground had been broken in 1870 only to effect Dorset Company. In anticipation of the Act a junction at Wells Station. This was necessary passing, an agreement, afterwards confirmed by to the through communication, for which only the the Act, was made between the two companies in Bristol Company had taken the line into their March 1865, and one article provided that the hands, and to facilitate which the Somerset Com Bristol Company should for ever pay to the pany had bound themselves by the same agree Somerset Company, as compensation or rent for ment. This breaking of ground consisted only in the easement of running powers and for the use of
removal of rails belonging to the Somerset | the passenger station, 4001. a year, to take effect Company's line by that company, but at the from the commencement of any works under the applicant's expense, to facilitate the broad gauge | agreement, meaning works on the passenger or communication which was considered necessary. | goods station of the Somerset Company at Wells, To effect that communication it was found inevi required to establish the through communication. table that the Cheddar valley line should cross a The railway generally was completed and opened goods siding belonging to the Somerset Company for traffic early in 1870, but at the inspection on by means of a level crossing, but the Board of Trade | behalf of the Board of Trade, before the opening, had refused to grant the necessary certificate. In objection was made, in advance, to the mode in consequence of that refusal, though the line had which the junction at Wells was about to be formed, been ready practically for use since May 1870, the by level crossings over various goods lines in the Bristol Company had hitherto been unable to make Wells station yard of the Somerset Company; and any use of it, and had reaped as yet none of the the result was that the extension of the railway to advantages which they had expected to obtain that company's passenger station was not carried from the construction of the Cheddar Valley line. / out, nor was through communication made But, although the Bristol Company had made no with the East Somerset line. Express powers for use of the Wells Station, or the servants and ap- | the level crossings were obtained from Parliament pliances there, the Somerset Company claimed the in 1873. The Somerset Company made a claim 4001. annually since 1870. This was unreasonable. for rent in 1869, but the Bristol Company denied Why shonld the Bristol Company pay for an ! that works had then been commenced, and on the
10th Feb. 1870, it was agreed between them that consists of two equal parts, one being compensation the Somerset Company should waive all claim for or rent for the passage through the station, and rent till the Bristol Company should begin to the otber compensation or rent for the use of the break ground within 6ft. of any of the sidings in station and for the services of the station staff. the Wells yard. It is admitted that ground was This latter part is terminable at any time by broken some time in 1870, but the Bristol Com- | notice from the Bristol Company that they intend pany maintain that, through a default of the to discontinue using the station, and bence it was Somerset Company, they have been prerented suggested, as we understood, that it would accord making any use of the Wells Station or of their with a fair inference to regard this part of the acquired right to pass through it, and that so long rent as meant to be concurrent with actual use. as they have not that use, the rent promised in But the agreement of 1865 makes no difference contemplation of their having it does not become between the two parts in the time of their compayable. This difference between the two com- mencing or while they continue payable, and we panies is referred for our decision. It appears do not see that we can make any distinction that the plans of the Cheddar Railway deposited between them, or treat them otherwise than alike. by the Somerset Company for the Act they ob As to the time when ground was first broken and tained in 1864 did not exhibit the goods lines in when the rent should begin to be payable, we their Wells Station intended to be crossed on the are of opinion that this should be the time menlevel, and that when the railway was inspected | ttoned in the application--namely, the 29th June previous to opening, the inspecting officer drew 1870. It is true that as early as February of that attention to the proposed level crossings in the year, the Bristol Company removed some rails at station, and intimated that they would be objected the points where their line would cross to take to and would not be held to have received an the angles of the crossings, but we regard what implied Parliamentary sanction from the general was done at that time as preparatory to the power given by the Act of 1864 to make the railway execution of work, and are of opinion that the in accordance with the line and levels shown in the company did not break ground, in the sense we deposited plans and sections. The officer who in give to that expression of commencing work, until spected for the Board of Trade was Colonel Yolland, the end of June. We shall not make any order as and the Bristol Company lost no time in com. to costs. municating with him as to his remarks on the crossings, and their correspondence on the subject was put in at the hearing. By the agreementof the
COURT OF ADMIRALTY. 10th Feb. 1870, it was prorided, inter alia, that the Reported by J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Somerset Company should waive all claim to rent for the Wells yard until the Bristol Company, in the construction of their Cheddar Railway, should begin
Thursday, Feb. 4. to break ground within 6ft. of the sidings in that
TUE DUNYOBB. yard, and that the Somerset Company, moreover,
Master's wages — Disobedience to instructionsshould offer no objection to any application the Error of judgment-Forfeiture-Deduction. Bristol Company might make to Parliament for Where a master receives instructions to take the express sanction to cross the goods lines in the balance of freight due at the end of a voyage in yard in the manner contemplated in the agree
cash, or by bank bill upon London, and, without ment of 1865. The date and the contents of the sufficient inquiry, but without mala fides and agreement of 1870 sbow conclusirely that the
rather through error of judgment, he takes a bill Bristol Company entered into it with a full know which he believes to be (but which is not) a bank ledge of the difficulty with the Board of Trade will, and which is afterwards dishonoured, causing and of the possibility of an application baving to lose to his owners, this negligence or disobedience, be made to Parliament to orercome that difficulty. not being wilful, does not work a forfeiture of his The rent itself was the subject of re-arrangement wages, nor can the owners claim to deduct the on that occasion, and it might have been made amount of their lo88 from his wages. dependent upon the issne of the suggested appli Tuis was an appeal from a decree of the City of cation to Parliament, but both parties agreed London Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) in a causo instead that the new starting point for the rent of wages instituted by John Harwood, master should be the happening of an erent of another mariner, against Messrs. Adamson and Ronaldson, kind, and wbich could only happen by the Bristol shipowners in the City of London, the owners of Company's own act-namely, their beginning to | the ship Dunmore. break ground within certain parts of the Wells The plaintiff was engaged on the 19th March yard. Surely, after this agreement was made 1872 by the defendants to act as master of the there was no longer any room for modifying its | Dunmore, at “ fifteen pounds per month," then effect by considerations drawn from circum. lying in the river Tyne, under charter to carry stances of which the parties had not only a coals from the Tyne to Buenos Ayres. By this full previous cognizance, but which furnished charter-party, dated the 18th March 1872, the ship one motire for their entering into it, and we can was to load a full cargo, and to proceed therewith come to no other conclusion than that the impedi to Buenos Ayres and “deliver the same, always ments to the completion of tbe line, of which afloat into craft alongside steamer or depôt ship the Bristol Company had notice in Nov. 1869, to tbere, as may be directed by the consigner, being whatever causes they may have been attributable, I paid freight at the rate of 358. per ton of 20 cwt.; must be altogether excluded from having any ... the freight to be paid, one third on sailing, bearing on the question of that company's less 5 per cent. for all charges, and balance on liability for tbe rent, and that the Somerset Com- | delivery of the cargo in cash at current exchange, pany are entitled to their rent from the time I or by good and approved bill on London at sixty when ground was first broken. The rent of 4001. 1 days' sight, at captain's option. The captain has
to receive 51. gratuity. ... The ship to be ad- | mitted it to his owners, believing it to be a bank dressed at the port of discharge in wards only, to bill, and calling it “a bank draft” in his letter to the freighters' agent free of commission. ... The them. He then, in accordance with his instrucowners of the ship to have an absolute lien on the tions, sailed for the Mauritius, where he arrived cargo for all freight, dead freight, and demurrage.” | on the 12th Nov. 1872. Whilst there he received This charter-party was entered into between the letters from his owners, inclosing a printed form of defendants and Gustav Hermanni, of Hamburgh. instructions, which they were in the habit of issuing
The ship daly loaded her cargo in the Tyne, tho I to all their masters, and in which it was said, charterer being the shipper; and the master, on | “ Make all remittances by bank bills, and where the 4th May 1872, signed a bill of lading for 654 practicable send remittances yourself, rather than tens 11cwt. of coal, “ shipped in good order and leave agents to do so. The only exception to our condition by Gustav Hermanni, Hamburgh," and request always to remit by bank bills is in the "to be delivered in the like good order and con case of the port of New York. From there we dition, at the port of Buenos Ayres, unto Messrs. tal:e the drafts of first-class houses on their branches Lamb Brothers, or to their assigns, they paying here.” He left the Mauritius with his ship, and freight for the said coals, and all other conditions, arrived in Calcutta on the 12th Jan. 1873. as per charter-party." The bill of lading was in The bill was received by the defendants on the dorsed with a receipt by the master for the sum 30th Sept. 1872, and was immediately presented to of 5811. 168. 5d., the amount of freight agreed by the River Plate Trading Company for acceptance, the charter-party to be prepaid at Newcastle. but they refused to accept, saying that Haaso had
On the 2nd May 1822 the defendants wrote to no authority to draw. Proceedings were taken the plaintiff at Newcastle, as follows:
against them, but without effect, and the bill was Dear Sir,-We have no letter from you this morning, then sent out again to Buenos Ayres for presentabat we hope you will get away to-morrow. The ship is tion to Haase, but at the time of the commenceconsigned, as you will see by the charter, to charterer's
ment of this cause nothing had been recovered on agent at Buenos Ayres, inwards only. We do not know their names yet, but shall have them in a day or two, and We will have letters awaiting you at their office. As
On the 25th Oct. the defendants wrote to the there is no chance of your loading out again at Buenos plaintiff at Calcutta, acknowledging the receipt of Ayres, we do not appoint any agents for the vessel there. his letter inclosing the draft, and saying: All that will have to be done is to collect the balance of inward freight and disburse the ship, remitting us what
In your letter you call it a bank draft, but it is no such money then remaing. The ship is free of commission to thing. It is on a trading company, who refuse to honour charterer's agents, and you will see it is at yoаr option
it, and, as far as we can see at present, we will lose the to take the balance of freight in cash at current exchange,
whole of the money. By your charter-party you were to get or by approved bill on London. You must do which you
bala ce of fieight in cash, or by an approved bill, at your deer best; but if you take a bill, it must be a bank bill,
option. Your duty then was clearly to have got the it being a rule with us that all remittances are to be
hard cash, gone to the best bank in Buenos Ayres, and made by such drafts. Always send remittances your.
have bought a bill there. That would really have been sell ; first of the draft by ono mail, and second by mail
a bank bill, in accordance with our printed instructions, following. Our idea of farther employment, &c.' (The
so plainly set forth; and how in the face of the game you rest of the letter is immaterial to the present case.)
send us such a draft, we are quite at a loss to conceive. The ship duly sailed with her cargo, and arrived
On the 18th Dec. the defendants again wrote to in Buenos Ayres all safe on or about the 15th
the plaintiff a letter, which was sent by a Captain July 1872. The inaster at once applied to Messrs.
Mitchell. The plaintiff was therein informed that Lamb Brothers, the consignees named in the bill he must hand over his command to Capt. Mitchell, of lading, for instructions as to delivery of the | and proceed at once to London in order that the cargo; and he was referred by them to a Mr. / plaintiff might see the defendants' solicitor, and Haase, the manager of the River Plate General give the latter a “detailed account of the whole of Trading Company in Buenos Ayres, to whom the circumstances connected with the 5501. draft” Messrs. Lamb said the cargo belonged. The master which the plaintiff took and advised to the defen. applied to Mr. Haase, and was by him informed
dants "as a bank bill.” The plaintiff was asked that his papers relating to the cargo (including
to keep down his travelling expenses, as all the the bill of lading) had not arrived from England, extra expense of bringing him home was “clearly but that he wonld clear the ship at the Custom traceable to his not having attended to the defenHouse. Mr. Haase accordingly cleared the ship,
dants' instructions." The master received this and the master commenced discharging cargo. Mr.
| letter two or three days after his arrival at CalHaase advanced money to the master to the amount cutta, the former letter having been there on his of 1401 for disbursements, but would not pay the arrival. The plaintiff at once left for London, whole amount of freight until the cargo was wholly where he arrived in the first week in March, and discharged. When it had all been delivered, the at once put himself in communication with the balance due for freight was 5501., including 51. defendants for the purpose of making up his acgratnity due to the master. The master applied counts and assisting them in recovering on the 5501. to Mr. Haase for the money in cash, but Haase draft. The plaintitf applied for his wages, and the offered bills drawn by himself upon The River defendants gave him 101. ou account. Plate Trading Company (Limited), No. 1, Leaden. On the 27th March 1875, he delivered them an hall-street, London. The master told Haase that account showing wages to be due to him amounting he wanted a bank bill, and Haage said that “The to 1101. 158. 3d. The defendants refused to pay bill is on my bank in London.” The master went this amount, because they said that the plaintiff to the British consul to inquire about the credit was indebted to thein for the 5501. in consequence of the River Plate Trading Company, and was in- | of his negligence in the matter. formed by the consul that " they were a new firm, On the 7th April the plaintiff had an interview and he knew nothing against them, but they were with the defendants' manager, when he again honourable people." The master thereupon took applied for a settlement of his account, and for a the bill offered for the balance of freight, and re. | testimonial they had promised him, and for his