tender evidence that, by the usage of trade, the underwriters were not liable for the loss of boats slung like the one in question.

Mr. Baron Vaughan was unwilling to receive that evidence, because it had been proved that boats so slung were in the best situation for the safety of the ship and crew in case of an accident.

Mr. Campbell said, that mercantile contracts were generally determined by usage.

Mr. Baron Vaughan said it would be difficult to deal in any particular case according to any general abstract proposition. In this case it was proved that the boat was in its best and safest place. His opinion was, that the policy was against all the damage done during the voyage; but as there had been no formal decision upon this point, he would reject the proffered evidence, and give the defendants liberty to move in a full court upon the point of law.

The jury then, under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff, giving the defendant liberty to move upon the point of law to enter a nonsuit, or upon the rejection of evidence, for a new trial.

3. PERILS OF THE SEA.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Siltings after Hilary Term, 1832.

Wells v. Hopwood.—The court gave judgment in this case, it was on a policy of insurance, and the question was, whether there had been a STRANDING. The ship having taken the ground in Hull harbour in the usual course, but having by the falling of the tide struck against some wooden piles there; these injured the vessel, and let in the water, by which the cargo was damaged.

Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Littledale, and Mr. Justice Taunton, thought this constituted a stranding within the meaning of the policy. But Mr. Justice Park differed.-Verdict for the plaintiff.

4. CAPTURE AND DETENTION BY PRINCES, &c.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Monday, May 9, 1831. Dalgliesh v. Hudson.-The Lord Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the court in this case. The only question to be decided, his Lordship observed, was, whether or not the sentence of condemnation pronounced by the Court of Admiralty at Buenos Ayres was conclusive evidence of the fact of the master of the ship in question having broken the blockade of the above port. The law upon this point, as laid down in all the cases on the subject, was quite settled. It was this: wherever the ground of the decision of condemnation was clearly and distinctly stated in the sentence itself, it was to be taken as conclusive evidence of the fact so alleged as the ground of such condemnation; but where the sentence did not state it, or left it in a state of doubt, then the question was left open to extrinsic evidence. In the present case the sentence stated various grounds of condemnation, one of which was, that the vessel had sailed from Liverpool for the port of Buenos Ayres, which was known, before she sailed, to be in a state of blockade, and had thus rendered her voyage altogether illegal. Here, therefore, was an alleged ground of condemnation, different from that of the captain having broken the blockade, and one which was mistaken in point of

law, inasmuch as such a circumstance, even if true, was not one which would render the voyage illegal. The court was of opinion, therefore, that the sentence of condemnation in the present case did not furnish conclusive proof of the master having violated the blockade, and that the other facts stated on the trial proved that he had neither done so nor intended to do so, and therefore there must be judgment for the plaintiff.

8. SALVAGE.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Saturday, Jan. 21.

The Andromeda.-This was a claim for salvage. The Andromeda, of 400 tons, with a general cargo valued at 24,2001. in her course up the Channel for the river Thames, the wind N.W., on the 28th of August last, got upon the Shingle Sand. Some Margate smacks came up, and were employed in carrying out an anchor, and assisting to get her off the sand, which was not effected till the morning of the 30th, nor till the vessel was lightened by the removal of some of the cargo. The claim was resisted on the part of the owners of the Andromeda, on the ground that the services rendered had the effect of keeping the vessel on the sand, that this was the object of the asserted salvors, in order that they might obtain a higher reward. The evidence was, as usual in such cases, extremely contradictory. The essential questions being of a purely nautical nature, the court was assisted by Trinity masters.

The King's Advocate and Dr. Phillimore, for the salvors.-Although there was much conflicting evidence in the case, some material facts were admitted or not denied. It was admitted that the vessel got upon the sand about four o'clock on a summer's day, with a steady wind, fair weather, and a flood tide. It was asserted, and not denied, that she was out of her proper course for London, which was by the Queen's Channel, and that they did not know where they were. Setting out with ignorance and misconduct upon their part, it was peculiarly ungracious to meet the claim of the salvors, by whose meritorious exertions his valuable vessel had been restored to the owners, by a charge of misconduct, and a design to keep the vessel on the sand, "in order to make a good job of it." It was charged against the salvors, that they had ordered the sails to be backed, which forced her further on the sand. It was a question when the sails were so backed. It was not probable that it was done by the recommendation of the salvors. Another charge was, that they had dropped the anchor in a wrong direction. It was admitted that the anchor was dropped a little more to the west than was intended, which was owing to the tide and wind.

The Admiralty advocate (Dr. Dodson) and Dr. Addams, for the owners. It was clearly proved, not only by the mates of the vessel, but by captain Cole, a passenger and a nautical man, that the measures taken by the pretended salvors were not for the speedy release of the vessel, but to get her further on the sand. Their first act, on coming on board, was to back the yards, which forced her hard on the sand. The anchor was carried out in such a way as to produce the same effect they might have placed it further to the south, since they did so afterwards. The exertions of these smacksmen were consequently worse than useless, and incurred the risk of a total loss.

Sir C. Robinson said, that the facts in question were three,-the backing the sails, the not getting out an anchor at the first tide, and the heaving, not on a warp, but on a chain cable, which was said to be im

proper. The learned judge proposed to the gentlemen by whom he was assisted the following questions:-first, whether the vessel might not have been got off sooner, and if so, whether it was owing to error, -dividing it into three degrees of error, namely, slight negligence, slight ignorance, or inexperience; secondly, whether there was a culpable degree of error; or, lastly, if it could be only ascribed to intention, with a view of increasing the value of their services, and thereby increas ing the danger of the vessel.

The Trinity masters were of opinion that no seaman could be guilty of so gross a want of seamanship as, under the circumstances, to back the sails; that with the assistance of so many men (sixty), had proper steps been taken, the vessel might have been got off the next tide; that under the circumstances of the vessel, there was no occasion to let go an anchor so far to the west, by which the ship was driven further upon the sand; and, that if the vessel had not been lightened, the wind might have shifted, and the ship and cargo have been lost. If all due exertion had been made, the vessel might have been got off next tide, and, if great exertion had been used, without any removal of the cargo.

The court, acting on this opinion, pronounced that no service had been rendered in this case, and consequently gave no salvage.

20. BOTTOMRY.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Wednesday, Dec. 7, 1831

The Cognac. The Cognac, of Scarborough, on her voyage from Charente to London, with a cargo of brandy and seeds, sustained damage and put into La Flotte, in the Isle of Rhé, where the cargo was unladen, and she was repaired. The master (Ewen) being without funds and credit there, obtained from the house of Marsillac and Co., of Rochelle, the sum of 24,170fr. 57c. (about £1,160) on a bottomry bond, bearing an interest of 20 per cent. On the arrival of the vessel in London, the owners refused payment of the bond, on the ground of the exorbitant interest, and that some of the items included, particularly the seamen's wages, were not properly the subject of a bottomry security. On a reference to the registrar, that officer disallowed the sum of 1265 francs, the seamen's wages,-reduced the commission by confining it to the amount of charges and disbursements,—instead of the value of cargo, and cut down the premium from 20 per cent. to 12 per cent. When the report came before the court, it was contended on the part of the bondholder that money could not be obtained at a smaller premium in that part of France at that period; that it was the constant practice there to charge commission on the value of the cargo; and that the wages of the seamen were necessary payments, in order to enable them to purchase clothes, &c. On the other hand, it was contended that no wages were due till the completion of the voyage, and therefore wages could not be included in a bottomry bond; that the custom of charging commission on the cargo was malus usus, and that the interest was exorbitantly high, since the insurance would not have exceeded 1 per cent.

Sir C. Robinson said, that as to the wages and the commission, he should confirm the report; but with respect to the reduction of interest, it was a point of considerable importance; and as it was the first case which had come before him, and the report contained no grounds for the reduction, he should reserve his decision on this point till next term and confer in the mean time with the registrar and merchants.

February 15, 1832.

Sir C. Robinson took a view of the authorities as to the power of this court to alter the premium stipulated in the bottomry bond, and was of opinion, that where fraud or exaction could be shown, this court had the power to interfere. In the present case, considering the situation of France at the date of the bond, when war might have been suddenly expected, and considering the manner in which the master had been left without resources by the owners, he could not pronounce the premium exorbitant. He therefore decreed in favour of the interest stipulated in the bond, (namely, 20 per cent.) and confirmed the rest of the registrar's report.

KING'S BENCH, Michaelmas Term, 1831.

Simonds v. Hodgson.-On a writ of error. This action was brought on a BOTTOMRY bond, and the question arose on the promise of the captain to pay the bond "on his safe arrival” at the port of discharge. It was held by the court below, that these words made the bond payable on the personal arrival of the captain; and that as it excluded all maritime risk, it could not be considered as a bottomry bond, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The court however, thought the words must be construed to mean his safe arrival with the ship." And that being so, there was the necessary risk to make it a loan of money on bottomry, and that the Court of Common Pleas must therefore be reversed.

66

judgment of the