BILLS OF LADING. Lading deposited at the bankers here are indorsed to the Merchant, but he (the Merchant) cannot get them because he refuses to accept the draught from the Shipper of the cargo. The Shipper has acted against order in sending less of the first sort of deals than were ordered, and the Merchant here wants the cargo, but I cannot deliver it until the Merchant is the holder of the Bill of Lading. Can I deliver the cargo to the Bill of Lading holder? The bankers at present are the holders, but, as I have said, they are indorsed to the Merchant. If not, shall I stop till the Lay-days are out before selling part of the cargo to pay my freight, or shall I also lay my Demurrage-days before I can go so far?Yours, &c., A FOREIGN SHIPMASTER. Poole, Oct. 8, 1876. [The bankers are not entitled to give an order for the delivery of the cargo, or to give up the documents to any other person than the Merchant to whom the Bills of Lading are indorsed. When the Lay-days have run out, the cargo should be landed, if possible, within the Demurrage-days allowed to the Merchant after the expiration of the Laydays. If the lien for freight, Demurrage, and other charges has been given, and it is not discharged, the goods may be sold at the end of 90 days. The bankers may discharge the lien.] INDORSED BILLS OF LADING. SIR, I have observed the answer in your impression of the 11th. Can I begin to discharge on the commencement of my Demurrage-days or not? I fancy that I must lay my Demurrage-days out also, because it forms a part of the Charter that those 10 Demurrage-days are allowed the Mer chant. If I commenced discharge in those days, the Merchant could in the meanwhile settle with his opponent, and compel me to bring the cargo into his yard.-Yours, &c., Poole, Oct. 12, 1876. A FOREIGN SHIPMASTER. [We are of opinion that if the Merchant took to his goods in the Demurrage-days, he could not charge the ship with the expenses of removing the wood to his own yard. If payment for Demurrage is given by the Charter-party and Bills of Lading, and the owner of the goods does not make entry of the same and commence discharge within the Laydays, the Master can exercise his right of lien, and land the cargo within the Demurrage-days. The time for delivery under Section 67 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, implies Lay-days, and not the Demurrage-days.] INDORSEMENT TO ORDER. SIR,-A vessel loaded pitprops in France for a Welsh Port, under a Bill of Lading, which stipulates that "so many tons which I promise to deliver to Mr. S., or to his order on my being paid, as freight, the sum stipulated in the Charter;" but does not contain the clause "other conditions, &c." The Bill of Lading is indorsed by Mr. S. in the words "Deliver the cargo, as per the other side, to Messrs. the Co." Then the indorsement continues "Freight Exchange, Advance," and finally "Rate for discharging, 50 tons per day." Signed with the initials "J. S." The indorsement shows that Mr. S. had sold the cargo to the Company, and they paid the Captain his freight, excepting on a small portion of it, which they declined to take, the freight on which Mr. S. paid. The ship has two days' Demurrage to claim. Can the Captain claim from either of the parties, the Company or the original Consignee? The latter says that he is merely an Agent for the Shippers in France. The Bill of Lading being indorsed with the time for discharging, does that make the receivers liable? SUBSCRIBERS. March 10, 1876. [If the Consignor of the ship was the maker of the Bills of Lading, and also shipper of the pitprops, and he sold them to a Company, and the purchasers were cognisant of the conditions on the Bills of Lading, and acted upon those stipulations so far as concerns freight, exchange, and advance, they would be liable for any Demurrage incurred; but an TRANSHIPMENT UNDER BILLS OF LADING. SIR, A Broker A indorsed a Bill of Lading to B, containing the following clause :-"Shipped by A on board the lying at Liverpool and bound for Russia, with leave to tranship at the following goods." This Bill of Lading B sent to his buyer in Russia, who, after waiting two months, returned the documents to us, believing the lost, she never having reached Russia. On making investigations in England, we learn the goods were transhipped in England and sent to Russia by another boat, and there confiscated in consequence of there being no receiver. The buyer was unaware that any cargo for him had arrived and therefore could not claim it. 1st. Was it the duty of the Shipowner to give notice (in case of the leave clause being used) into what vessel and when our property had been transferred? If so, is be liable for our loss? 2nd. Must A or B recover from the Owner? The transhipment clause is permissive only, not indicating a certainty of change of vessel, when possibly we might have been more at fault. Newcastle, April 12, 1876. T. J. W. & Co. [1st. It is customary, in several steam trades, to issue Bills cf Lading giving the power of transhipment; but, as a rule, the Shipowner, the Agent, or someone on his behalf, usually advises the Consignees of transhipped cargo of the arrival of the vessel, and instructs the Bill of Lading holders to apply for their goods. This practice is followed and enforced by the Managers of more than one Steam Shipping Company; and if the system of giving notice in all cases is not followed, we are of opinion that it should be. 2nd. If the goods have been confiscated through the Consignee not having been informed by the Shipper or the Shipowner of the transhipment, the buyer would have a cause of action against the seller; and the Shipper, in his turn, might make a claim on the Shipowner for transhipping the goods and not giving notice of the name of the second vessel. In either case, it would be necessary to prove that the buyer in Russia might have placed himself in communication with the Agent of the steamer, if there be one at the Port. Two months is an unreasonable time to wait without communicating.] RUSSIAN LAWS AND DETENTION. SIR,-I take the liberty of asking your advice on a subject which bears some analogy to the leader in your number of 20th inst. Last July I chartered one of my steamers to a house in Newcastle to load a cargo of iron and coals thence to Cronstadt. When the steamer was loaded the Charterers, who were also Shippers of the cargo, had neither Bills of BILLS OF LADING. Lading nor Manifest ready for signature, so it was verbally arranged that the Bills of Lading were to be signed for the Captain by his Agents at Newcastle. In the presence of these Agents the Charterers told my Captain, when taking leave at their office, that he might quietly proceed to sea, as they would at once write out the Bills of Lading and the Manifest, and, after having got the signature of the Captain's Agents, would forward them to the party to whom the ship was addressed at Cronstadt. The steamer accordingly left Newcastle on the 27th of July, and, after a quick passage, arrived at Cronstadt on the 2nd of August. On her arrival there, neither the Bills of Lading nor Manifest had come forward, because the documents were only despatched from Newcastle several days after the steamer had left. The consequence was that the steamer was fined by the Russian Custom-house authorities in about 900 silver roubles (which is about one-fifth of the whole fieight), and, notwithstanding all my endeavours to get the fine remitted or reduced, I have had to pay the full amount. I then applied to the Charterers at Newcastle, asking them to reimburse me,but they tell me that, on account of their having had some difficulty in getting at the weight of the goods shipped, they could not send off the documents earlier, and that they by no means consider themselves liable for fines imposed by foreign Custom-houses, they being protected by the customary clause in the Charter-party, according to which the liability of the Charterers cease as soon as the cargo is on board. This I consider to be very bad treatment. My Captain proceeds to sea without the documents relating to the cargo mainly to oblige the Charterers, for it seems to me without doubt that he was entitled to demurrage had he waited for the Bills of Lading &c. being made out; and now, in consequence of their not fulfilling their promise, a heavy loss results to the ship, the Charterers denying their liability to make good the loss. Who, under the above circumstances, is liable for the fine the ship or the Charterers ? A. G. Dantzic, Dec. 27, 1875. [The Charterer of a ship would be liable for detention arising from the non-arrival or non-production of Bills of Lading; and, under the circumstances mentioned, we are of opinion that the Charterer is liable for all acts done or omitted to be done before the sailing of the vessel, and the consequences thereof.-(See page 59, Maritime Notes and Queries.)] STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. SIR,-Certain Shippers, retaining even to the present moment the Policy of Insurance, sold a cargo of coals at a certain price, cost, freight, and insurance, to a retail Merchant, to whom they sent indorsed Bill of Lading, but who became insolvent before the vessel reached the Port of discharge. The Consignee, shortly before filing his petition in bankruptcy, in his turn indorses the Bill of Lading to a third party, presumably an innocent holder, who avers that he paid invoice price for the cargo in hard cash, receiving for such payment the indorsed Bill of Lading, but no Insurance Policy. There were three Bills of Lading, signed by the Master of the vessel. The Shippers proceed to the Port of discharge, and there stop the vessel in transitu, and induce the Captain to discharge to a new or fourth party, to whom was indorsed another of the signed Bills of Lading. Was not the cargo, while thus in transit, or until the vessel got alongside the orignal Consignee's wharf, or as near to it as possible, the absolute property of the Shippers? And, if so, is not the original Consignee liable to the Shippers for all damages accruing to them for selling what did not really belong to him? This point of sale-cost, freight, and insurance was completely lost sight of in a recent lawsuit, and your opinion will be regarded of great value with the view to a new trial, for which leave to move has been given by the Judge. Your views, as stated in extenso in pages 57 and 58 of Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., would indicate that if the Consignee had no bonâ fide property in the coals at the time of his indorsing the Bill of Lading, he could not either legally or equitably pass the property to another. April 8, 1876. SCRUTATOR. [Under the 6th of Geo. IV., cap. 94, sec. 2, "any person or persons intrusted with and in possession of any Bill of Lading, India Warrant, Dock Warrant, Warehouse-keeper's BILLS OF LADING. Certificate, Wharfinger's Certificate, Warrant or Order for delivery of goods, shall be deemed to be taken to be the true Owner provided such person or persons, body or bodies politic or corporate, so accepting or taking such goods in deposit or pledge shall and may acquire possession, and enforce such right, title, or interest as was possessed and might have been enforced by such person or persons so possessed and intrusted as aforesaid, any rule of law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." A Bill of Lading "shall be deemed and taken to be a document of title" (5th and 6th Vic., cap. 39, sec. 4). By common law, however, the seller of goods has a right of stoppage in transitu if the buyer has become bankrupt before the goods actually reach his possession, even though they should be landed at the Port of destination, but not delivered to the Consignee. If, however, the sale was a bonâ fide one for valuable consideration, or a Bill of Exchange was given, and the Bill of Lading was duly assigned to the purchaser, the Consignee would be entitled to indorse the Bill of Lading to a third party, and the latter's right could not be defeated by the Consignor. The indorsor of a Bill of Lading must have property in the goods, or otherwise he cannot transfer. Were this not so, a fraudulent buyer could indorse a Bill of Lading to a confederate and defeat the claims of the seller. Where several Bills of Lading are presented for the delivery of goods it is the duty of the Master of a ship to land and warehouse the same, or place them in the custody of parties subject to the lien for freight &c., and leave the applicants to make good their claims, and the Court would have to decide the question of proprietorship.] CONTRACT TO DELIVER COAL. SIR, A Danish Merchant bought a quantity of gas coal in October last from an English house, as per following contract from the sellers :-" We confirm having sold you keels gas coal at per ton c.i.f. (Danish Port), less 2 per cent. discount for cash against receipt of Bill of Lading. The coals to be in (Danish Port) Harbour before the 1st of December this year (1876)." Part of the coals was shipped and received, but the balance of the contract was shipped on the 2nd of November by a vessel which has never since been heard of, and is presumed to be lost. The Danish Merchant resold the coal on the same conditions as bought, and his buyer makes a claim for non-delivery. On the Danish Merchant applying to the English Shippers for the coals, he is informed they (the English Shippers) plead indemnity from any liability according to the Marine Law of England. Are the English Shippers justified by the English Marine Law they quote in refusing to implement their engagement to deliver the coals, or do you consider them liable for damage for non-delivery, although the vessel has been lost, as there was no exemption mentioned in the contract?Yours, &c., MERCHANTS. Leith, Feb. 19, 1877. [If a person contracts to deliver coal, he is bound to fulfil his engagement despite all adverse contingencies, unless he limits his liability by express stipulations. It would appear, however, that the sale of the coal, in the instance referred to, was made conditional against the receipt of Bills of Lading; and if the Bills of Lading were incorporated in the agreement, and indorsed to and received by the purchaser, he would be liable for the conditions stated therein under the Bills of Lading Act (18 and 19 Vic., cap. 111). If, therefore, the vendee took to the Bills of Lading, the vendor would be relieved from the performance of his contract by perils of the sea. •] COOPERAGE OF SUGAR CASKS. SIR,-My ship is now at this Port discharging a cargo of syrup in puncheons and tierces, and, as some of the casks are coming out damaged (through stress of weather), the BOTTOMRY. receivers insist upon my providing a cooper to repair the same at the ship's side, alleging this to be the custom. My cargo has to be delivered in the terms of the Bills of Lading, as they make no referenee to the Charter-party. In them there is nothing said about custom, and, besides, they stipulate that the ship shall be “not accountable for leakage, breakage, &c." Under these circumstances, should the cooper be provided by the ship or by the receivers ? I enclose a copy of the Bill of Lading for your inspection ?-Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER. Leith, Jan. 22, 1877. [The Bill of Lading contains the following paragraph :— "Not accountable for leakage, breakage, stain, or rust. Quality, quantity, weight, and contents unknown. Cargo to be received from alongside within reach of ship's tackle when notice given. Lighterage, if any, to be borne by the cargo." Under this agreement the Shipowner would not be liable for the cooperage of casks. No custom of a Port would ake him so.] RISK OF BOATS. STR,-You are familiar with the following clause in ordinary Bills of Lading, viz. :-"The act of God, Queen's enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of whatever nature and kind soever, excepted." But I request your opinion on the legal and general bearing of the following addition, which now (in many Bills of Lading) precedes the word excepted, viz.:-"Risk of boats, so far as ships are liable thereto." London, Feb. 26, 1876. J. H. S. [Shipowners having to convey goods to or from the shore by boats, desire to protect themselves against losses from causes beyond their control. If goods are deposited at a warehouse on account of the ship, and such goods have to be taken off in a surf boat, which may capsize or take in water over all, the Shipowner acts wisely in endeavouring to protect himself against perils, the guarding against which is not within his control. A boat or barge may also be run down or meet with disaster. From all such dangers and accidents the Shipowner would be exempt under the clause given, but not from damages arising from his own neglect.] BOTTOMRY. BOTTOMRY BOND ON CARGO. SIR, The question has arisen on different occasions in Scotland as to the right of the holder of a Bottomry Bond over ship, freight, and cargo arriving in this country, to sell part of cargo to pay off the Bond when the two former were exhausted, and did not bring sufficient to meet the Bond. I should like your opinion on this point.-Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER OF TWENTY YEARS' STANDING. Leith, Aug. 7, 1876. (A ship sustained damage in leaving Pernambuco, and put BOTTOMRY. back for repairs. A Bottomry Bond was given, and ou arrival at Liverpool the ship and freight did not realise the amount expressed therein. It was held that the Bond was valid against the cargo for the difference.-(The "Lord Cochrane," Admiralty Court, June 21, 1844.) It was established in "Benson v. Duncan," Exchequer, Feb. 6, 1849; "Benson v. Chapman," and "Hallett v. Wigram," that where cargo has been taken to pay the balance of the Bottomry Bond after the ship and freight have been exhausted, the Shipowner was liable to indemnify the proprietor of the goods, less the proportion of General Average and particular charges. See also "Duncan v. Brown" (in error). Where the Master of a ship pledges the cargo in addition to the ship and freight, and the value of the ship and freight does not realise the amount of the Bond, it would follow that the extra expenditure was prima facie for the benefit of the cargo; and the sum taken out of the Bond in excess of the cargo's share in General Average might be readjusted in Average.] BOTTOMRY AND COMMISSION ON CARGO. SIR, Is it justifiable for one who advances money in a Port of distress for a vessel's expenses, besides having the security of a Bottomry Bond and the presumptive benefit of a heavy premium, to also charge a percentage on the value of the cargo for agency and also a commission on disbursements?-Yours, &c., ASSURANCE. London, Aug. 31, 1876. [If a person performs three special services-1st, advances money on Bottomry; 2nd, transacts an agency business in connection with the ship and the cargo in loading and unloading; and 3rd, finds cash to pay disbursementshe would be entitled besides to interest on the Bond, Brokerage Commission if earned, and a percentage on money's advanced.] BOTTOMRY BOND AND LAY-DAYS. SIR,-I arrived at this Port with a cargo of linseed from St. Petersburg, but through misfortune had to be assisted into Ronne, where the cargo was discharged and my ves el repaired. I had to take up money on a Bottomry Bond. On arrival I reported the ship at the Customs and gave the Consignees notice. By Charter I have six running days for discharge I reported upon Friday, the 18th inst., so considered my Laying-days commenced on the Saturday. The Consignees gave security to the holder of the bond, but did not commence discharging until the 22nd, upon which day they say the delivering days commenced, alleging the vessel was not ready to deliver until the security, the bond, was upon ship and cargo. A FOREIGN CAPTAIN. Lynn, Feb. 24, 1876. [When the ship was reported ready for delivery, the Laydays in this case would commence, and the cargo, having been carried to its destination, might have been warehoused at the end of the time expressed for the delivery of the goods by Charter or Bill of Lading.-(Section 67, par. 1, Merchant Shipping Act, 1862.) And although a Bottomry Boud may have been given on the cargo and ship, that would not be a sufficient excuse for detaining the vessel.] AVERAGE AND UNSEAWORTHINESS. SIR,-Several shippers of valuable goods chartered a vessel on the Tyne to load for a Port in the Baltic. The vessel loaded and put to sea, but, in consequence of unseaworthiness, had to put into an intermediate port for repairs. The cargo, which was insured for over 2,000l., was discharged. The ship is valued at about 80%., and to make her good would cost about 500. The Surveyors report that she was unfit to carry this cargo at the commencement of the voyage. The cargo has got considerably damaged, and expenses have been BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. incurred on it. Can this vessel, in your opinion, reload the goods without the extensive repairs required? Have the goods to contribute to anything beyond General Average? There will be a Bottomry of 500l. on the ship, freight, and cargo. Suppose the vessel arrives at her destination, has the cargo to make good what is short after exhausting ship and freight? The vessel has got temporary repairs, but not sufficient, in the opinion of the Surveyors, to make her seaworthy. A MERCHANT. Leith, March 22, 1876. [If the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of sailing the Owner of the cargo could not be made liable for temporary repairs of the ship, nor could he be compelled to keep back his cargo in order to be forwarded by the vessel; nor would the Master be authorised to demand the shipment if the vessel continued unseaworthy. The Bottomry Bond might be enforced on the cargo after the ship and freight were exhausted, but the Shipper would have his remedy over against the Shipowner.-(See Leading Articles in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Feb. 16 and 22, 1874, and Dec. 28, 1875.)] VESSELS STRANDED. SIR,-P.M. advanced 5,000f. on a Bottomry Bond on the Adele Marie, her cargo of wheat, and freight, payable, with 400f. interest, 48 hours after safe arrival at Bordeaux. P.M. then indorsed over the Bond to us at the nominal sum of 5,400f., less 3 per cent discount. The vessel is wrecked (stranded) at Palais (Belle Isle), and the damaged cargo has been sold. What is our remedy? Shall we wait and see if the vessel is repaired and completes her voyage, or claim against the proceeds of the cargo and Salvage; or is P.M. liable to repay the money on his indorsement? Stockton-on-Tees, March 30, 1876. J. B. & CO. [The Owner of the Bottomry Bond may wait till the ship is repaired; but if a second Bond has been given to the repairer of the ship, or the Shipwright retains a lien on the vessel, the case will be complicated-(see Letter in Maritime Notes and Queries, page 191, Vol. I.; "Bottomry, Insurance, and Constructive Total Loss," at page 160, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.; and page 141, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.-and therefore the Bond should be enforced before repairing. The Bond would pass with all its equities; and as it was an insurable interest, the indorsee should have protected himself against loss. He cannot recover from the original lender on the Bond.] BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. WIDOWS' CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. A correspondent asks whether, in the event of a ship being lost with all hands, the widow of a Master is entitled to be paid the commission on the freight which, we presume, the Owner had agreed to pay. The question is not altogether free from doubt, but we are of opinion that, if the contract to allow the Master a commission can be proved, it would be recoverable in a Court of Law. We may state at the outset that the administratrix of a Shipmaster, who has lost his life at sea while in the service of the Shipowners, has a right to sue for wages earned and disbursements due to the deceased.-(" WEBSTER v. DE TASTET; "KING v. GLOVER," confirmed by "HAWKINS v. FURZELL," Queen's Bench, January 30, 1856.) It has also been decided that a Seaman has a charge on moneys receivable under a Policy of Insurance for freight, and that the same may be attached by the order of a Superior Court. When, however, we come to speak of freight, we are landed at once BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. in a sea of difficulty. A vessel may be chartered for a lump sum, or the freight made payable before shipment, or at other times. If freight is made payable at the Shipping Port "one month after sailing, ship lost or not lost," and is not so paid, the Master has a lien for the freight-(The Dumfriesshire, Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, August 28, 1856); but if no mention is made of ship lost or not lost, the Shipowner would not have a lien for freight, if the latter was made payable at the loading Port.(“How v. KIRCHNER," J.C.P.C., December 16, 1857, and other cases.) If, therefore, commission were made payable conditionally on the freight being earned, it will be seen that it may or may not be recoverable in the event of the loss of a ship, and, as a rule, the carriage is not due until goods have been delivered. Again, it is a common practice for Charterers to make an advance on account of the freight, and this portion, being at the risk of the hirer of the ship, is not returnable even should the cargo fail to reach its destination. The moneys advanced on freight, though not earned, give the Charterer an insurable interest, and he covers his risk by a Policy, and charges the Shipowner with the premium. Is money prepaid for the conveyance of goods earned by the Shipowner if he is not in a condition, through perils of the sea, to fulfil his engagement? It may be said to be earned in the sense that the Shipowner has provisioned his vessel and incurred other expenses towards earning the advance; and if it is agreed that perils of the sea shall exonerate the Shipowner from becoming liable for the total loss of the goods, the freight should be governed by that exemption. Suppose, for example, a Shipowner undertook to convey a certain quantity of goods to a Port, and to be paid the freight thereon when the vessel reached her destination, and a commission was payable to the Master, would he have an insurable interest? Could he insure his commission? Might not an Underwriter say in defence, "I find the entire freight has been "covered in a Policy, and as that embraces the com"mission due to you, I decline to pay, because, were "I to do so, I should do an injustice to insurers by "contravening the usage which does not admit of "parties recovering more than a full indemnity"? A Shipowner, however, is not compelled to insure his freight, and if he loses his vessel there is no remuneration due to him. From this point of view it may be urged that, if the Owner forfeits his freight, the commission should go with it. The agreement between the Shipowner and the Master in this last mentioned particular should be clearly defined, inasmuch as Brokerage under a Charter-party would be due; and as this is calculated in the earnings of the ship, the Agent's claim is not defeated by the loss of the vessel. If the Shipowner voluntarily takes upon himself the risk of loss on moneys paid on the chartering of his ship, why should he not incur the responsibility of paying a commission to the Master? Freight was considered to be the mother of wages; but as freight can be insured, the parent is never dead. In a case such as that put to us by our Correspondent, there are queries enough to occupy the Courts for a considerable period; but we incline to the opinion that, if a Master has not an insurable interest in the commission, he would secure a verdict in his favour. The Master has an insurable interest in the anticipated profits of the voyage, but no two BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. persons can recover under Policies for the same consideration. It would be open to an Owner to tell the Master that the commission would be at his risk or otherwise, and a memorandum to this effect would serve to settle any dispute; but, in the absence of express stipulations, litigation may have to be resorted to. In January 1874 we reported a lawsuit in reference to Captain's commission-(vide "EVANS (administratrix) v. the Newport Dry Dock Company," Court of Exchequer)—which has a direct bearing on the issue before us. The Captain of a ship, by the resolution of the Dock Company, was to receive 2 per cent. commission " on gross freight earned." A letter was sent to the Master informing him that he would be paid "on the gross earnings." The ship foundered at sea, and the Master was drowned. At the trial, before Mr. Justice HONYMAN, at Gloucester, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. This was appealed against on the ground that the question was one for the decision of the Judge, and should not have been left to the jury, as it involved law and not facts. The Court of Exchequer, in discharging the rule, held that "there was evidence that the contract was for a salary computed on the gross freights, "whether earned or not, and not a contract to pay on 'gross freight earned." Counsel applied for leave to appeal from this judgment, but the Court declined to grant permission to carry the case further. The Court considered that the question was a right one for the jury, and that the Judge had acted in strict conformity with law. That case turned partly upon the commission being paid out of the gross freight when earned. A great deal might be said on the distinction between the words " gross freight" and "gross "freight earned." If freight can be insured it is not at risk, and the only difference is that it is received from the Underwriter instead of from the Merchant. In another case of recovering commission it was stated that the costs of the plaintiff out of pocket exceeded the sum claimed. When the machinery of Superior Courts is set in motion to procure settlements of comparatively small amounts, and the taxed costs only are allowed, the victor is pecuniarily vanquished. It is of importance, therefore, in contracts with Masters, where the remuneration for services is to be divided between fixed wages and commission, that a definite understanding should be arrived at as to how and when the percentage is to be paid.-June 22, 1876. ADDRESS COMMISSION. SIR,-One of our ships lately discharged a cargo of coals at Pernambuco, and upon the Captain going to settle his freight he was surprised to find that the Consignee insisted upon deducting (in addition to the 24 per cent. commission allowed by Coal Charter) a further commission of 2 per cent. on the estimated freight the ship would make home under a Charter entered into by us in England, and altogether apart from the Coal Charter, and with entirely different parties. The Coal Charter contained a clause as follows:-"Ship to be addressed to Charterer's Agent at Port of discharge, paying 24 per cent. commission;" and because the words "inwards only" were not added to this, the Consignee claimed the right of deducting the 24 per cent. upon the homeward freight, with which he had nothing whatever to do. The Master did all in his power to get a settlement, but without avail, and eventually, to avoid detention, had to submit to this deduction from his freight under protest. Under the circumstances, can we claim upon the Charterer here for the amount thus stopped from the coal freight? We enclose a copy of the Charter for your perusal, which, you will observe, the Charterer signs as agent for the Freighter, but BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. does not disclose his Principal, neither is a lien given on the cargo for freight. On the other hand, will the clause " Charterer's liability to cease on cargo being shipped and advance nade" be a bar to our claim upon him? Sunderland, Feb. 12, 1876. SUBSCRIBERS. [There are two conditions in the Charter-party as to commission. Five per cent. was to be paid as follows:-Oncthird to a firm in London, and the remainder to the Owner and the Broker. The other stipulation is that the ship is to be addressed to the Charterer's Agents at the Port of discharge, who are to receive 24 per cent. commission. They would not under that contract be entitled to more than 2 per cent. whether they transacted the inward business only, or the outward in addition thereto. The Charterer would not be liable under the contract for acts done after sailing, and the Master should not have parted with the cargo without the payment of the freight.] SIR,-A licensed deep sea Pilot, who could not speak any foreign language, and who never was a Pilot of any foreign ships before, came to me and made a verbal agreement to allow me so much commission out of the deposit which the Captain left in my hands for every vessel which I procured for him to pilot in the three channels from a Port in Ireland. For every vessel which I have succeeded in procuring for him I have deducted, according to the above agreement, my commission, which he never objected to, although I have got him 20 or 30 vessels for the past few years. Several other Pilots allow me the same commission, and he has also allowed other foreign Brokers the same commission, and in some cases even more than what he has allowed me, which I can |