place of adjustment, as if not his goods but those of some other person had been thus sacrificed" (c). The proper place for the adjustment of a general average is the port of destination, unless the voyage is broken up, and the ship and cargo part company at an intermediate place. The value of goods jettisoned is therefore to be computed at the sum which it may fairly be assumed that they would have been worth to the owner at the place of adjustment. If from the circumstances and the damaged condition of the rest of the cargo, it may fairly be assumed that the jettisoned goods would, if they had not been thrown overboard, have arrived in the like damaged condition, their value is to be the sum they would have realized as damaged goods (d). The amount to be allowed for goods jettisoned or otherwise sacrificed, when the voyage is completed, is their estimated value based upon the market price of similar goods on the date when the remainder of the cargo is delivered, less all charges which would have been incurred by the consignee had the goods arrived, but which have been avoided through their loss. Where the voyage is broken up at an intermediate port the amount to be allowed is regulated by the value which the jettisoned cargo would have had at that place if it had been brought there. In case freight, whether advanced or at the shipowner's risk, is lost owing to the jettison or other sacrifice of cargo, the amount so lost is allowed in general average. The amount to be allowed as compensation for the sacrifice of ship's materials is measured by the cost of repairing the damage, or replacing the articles destroyed, at the proper time and place for so doing, which is in general the arrival of the vessel at her port of destination, unless the repairs have previously been executed at a port of refuge. The deductions made on account of the substitution of new for old materials are the same for repairs in general average as in particular average. One-third is deducted from the entire cost (c) The Law of General Average, 3rd ed., p. 181. (d) Fletcher v. Alexander, L. R. 3 C. P. 375. of the repairs, including both labour and materials, to iron as well as wooden ships (e), with the following exceptions, viz.: no deductions are made from the repair of damage sustained by a vessel on her first voyage; nor from the cost of temporary repairs; graving dock expenses and removals ; cartages; the use of shears, stages, and graving dock materials; boat hire; the expense of straightening bent ironwork, with the labour of taking out and replacing it; the cost of replacing anchors, provisions, and stores which preserve the same value until consumed; or materials which are taken into use for the first time for sacrifice in the common interest, such as spare sails or coils of new rope got up from the store-room. The cost of replacing chain-cables is subjected to the deduction of one-sixth. VI.-EXPENSES AND SACRIFICES NOT ALLOWED. There are many cases of loss or expenditure which approximate more or less closely to general average, but are not recoverable under that head, according to British law and custom, either because they fail to possess all the conditions which are essential to admission as subjects for contribution, or because, though admissible in principle, they are rejected from motives of expediency, or in deference to usage. These various grounds of exclusion, with the principal instances of each, have now to be noticed. 1. Sacrifice or expenditure which arises in the performance of the contract of affreightment, and is therefore ordinary in its nature, though enhanced in amount by reason of a common danger (f).—Under this head are excluded—The wages and maintenance of the crew during the detention of the vessel in a port of refuge; the value of the coals consumed in working (e) The practice of making a uniform deduction of one third from repairs to iron ships, after the first voyage, is due to the misapplication of a custom which originated before ships were built of iron, and obviously requires modification. (f) Wilson v. Bank of Victoria, L. R. 2 Q. B. 203; Covington v. Roberts, 2 B. & P. N. R. 378; Taylor v. Curtis, 6 Taunt. 608. the engines of a steamer, when stranded, to get her off, or in pumping a leaky ship; the extra consumption of coals and engine stores incurred to enable a disabled sailing vessel, fitted with an auxiliary screw, to complete her voyage under steam only; the value of the coals' consumed in working a donkey engine to discharge cargo, even when the discharge is a forced one; harbour dues, or other charges, incurred through putting into a port on account of contrary winds alone; damage by carrying a press of sail to escape from a common danger; injury to pumps or donkey-engines by excessive use; cargo pumped up at sea and lost; damage incurred, or stores consumed, in resisting an enemy; &c. 2. Sacrifice or expenditure which is consequent upon the default of one or more of the parties to the contract of affreightment (g).—Under this head are excluded-Loss or expenses resulting from the original unseaworthiness of the ship, or from the negligent or injudicious conduct of the master or crew; the jettison of cargo, owing to some dangerous condition in it which has resulted from the fault of the shipper— as of hemp, which has heated because it was shipped in a damp state; the consumption of cargo or ship's materials as fuel to work the engines of a steamer, or a donkey-engine, if the supply of fuel for these purposes respectively was originally insufficient; the jettison of articles when improperly carried on deck, such as water-casks (h), or hawsers and chains, excepting in the latter case the vessel is in the vicinity of land; the jettison of goods stowed on deck, unless on a coasting voyage, or the carriage of goods on deck is customary in the trade (i). 3. Sacrifice or expenditure incurred on account of a (g) Schloss v. Heriot, 14 Scott, C. B. (N. S.) 59; Worms v. Storey, 11 Exch. 427. (h) As water-casks in use are invariably carried on deck, their exclusion from general as well as particular average can only be supported on the ground of usage. (2) These are the only well-defined exceptions recognised at law. A third supposed exception was, that the jettison of deck-load is general average as between those parties who have expressly assented to it; and, in support of that view, the following passage has been frequently cited from the judg ment of Willes, J., in Johnson v. Chapman (19 C. B. (N. S.) 563), which was an action by the shipper of a cargo of deals against the shipowner for contri danger or defect which is peculiar to a part of the property (k).—Under this head are excluded-The cost of floating a stranded ship, after the cargo has previously been landed and placed in safety by a separate operation; expenses incurred in case of wreck to save portions of the property independently of each other; the discharge or jettison of cargo on account of damage to it resulting from its vice propre; the cutting away of a sail to save a mast (1); the hire of labourers to pump a leaky ship after the cargo has been discharged and placed in safety; &c. 4. Sacrifice or expenditure which, though consequent upon a general average act, is not its proximate result (m).—Under this head are excluded-The expenses of warehousing and reloading cargo which has been discharged on account of a common danger; the expenses of quitting a port of refuge which has been entered for the common safety; the loss of goods by bution to the loss of deals jettisoned from the ship's deck :-" It is not necessary to refer to any custom affecting the voyage, because according to the contract between the parties, there was to be a deck-cargo. Then, immediately that you find that the deckcargo is within the contemplation of the parties, you must deal with it as if shipping a deck cargo was lawful. When you have established that it was a deck-load lawfully there by the contract of the parties, it becomes subject to the rule of general average.' In Wright v. Marwood (L. R. 7 Q. B. 62), the Court of Appeal refused to apply this doctrine to the case of a jettison of cattle from the ship's deck, where the owner of the cattle had claimed compensation in general average from the shipowner on the ground that the charter-party contemplated a deckcargo, and held that there was no claim, whether for general average, or for particular right against the shipowner to contribute. We fall back then upon the two exceptions above specified, which perhaps resolve themselves into one, viz., that goods jettisoned from the deck are allowed for in general average, if their carriage on deck is sanctioned by trade usage; but even this exception may be qualified by a particular custom, proving that the deck-load was carried at the risk of the shipowner (Gould v. Oliver, 2 Mann. & G. 208), or by one exonerating the underwriter from liability to contribute where the carriage of the deck-load has not been sanctioned by express words in the policy (Miller v. Titherington, 6 H. & N. 278; 7 H. & N. 954). (k) Job v. Langton, 6 E. & B. 779; 26 L. J. (Q. B.) 97; Walthew v. Marrojani, L. R. 5 Ex. 116. Though the loss of cargo which is jettisoned owing to a danger or defect peculiar to itself is not the subject of general average, the exclusion is to be confined to the particular goods so affected, and will not extend to the jettison of sound goods, though forming part of the same bulk cargo. Pirie v. Middle Dock Co., 4 Asp. Mar. L. C. 390. (1) Under the same practical rule, a spar cut away to save a mast was formerly excluded, but the practice has since been modified in cases where it can be shown that extraordinary danger to ship and cargo would have been the alternative to the act of cutting away. (m) Svendson v. Wallace, L. R. 10 App. Cas. 404; see also Baily on General Average, 2nd ed., p. 35; Lowndes, 3rd ed., p. 26; Hopkins, 3rd ed., pp. 43, 76. fire or robbery at a port of refuge, after they have been discharged and placed in safety; loss or expense arising from a part of the cargo, which has been discharged at a port of refuge, being left behind, owing to the impossibility of re-stowing it in the vessel's hold; loss by the derangement of stowage or other injuries to the ship or cargo resulting from a jettison, if not occasioned by the circumstances existing at the time of the jettison, but by circumstances of an accidental nature subsequently occurring; loss by the vessel encountering the wreckage of spars sacrificed for the common safety, after they have been once cut away clear; the loss of market on cargo, or the loss of interest on the ship, freight, or cargo, which is consequent upon he voyage being prolonged, owing to a general average act; &c. 5. Sacrifice or expenditure which is ostensible but not real (n).-Under this head are excluded-Loss to ship or cargo caused by a voluntary stranding, when there was no alternative to that proceeding; the cutting away of ship's materials which have been previously reduced by accidental damage to a state of wreck; the cutting away of a mast which, though intact at the time, is so disabled, that it must inevitably be lost, whether cut away or not; an anchor slipped from because it is so foul that there is no hope of its recovery; the pouring of water on packages which are on fire; a sacrifice of cargo or ship's materials, so far as it appears that, owing to an actual total or partial loss of the property subsequently happening, the same loss would have been sustained if the sacrifice had not been made; an extra expenditure which is reduced or obviated by a saving in ordinary expenditure effected thereby, as where an extraordinary saves an ordinary towage; &c. 6. Sacrifice or expenditure disallowed upon usage or for the sake of expediency (o).-Under this head are excludedLoss to ship or cargo caused by voluntary stranding (p), when (n) Shepherd v. Kottgen, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 585; see also the judgment of Willes, J., in Johnson v. Chapman, 2 Mar. L. C. 405; Stevens, 2nd ed., pp. 30-35; Lowndes, 3rd ed., pp. 6067. (0) Baily, 2nd ed., 41; Lowndes, 3rd ed., 54; Hopkins, 3rd ed., 55. (p) Here we touch on very debateable ground. There is probably no question upon which commentators on the law of general average have more |