GOVERNMENT CHARTER.

SIR,-I have at present a steamer placed on Time Charter under a Government form, and running between two Ports twice a week. On each occasion on entering harbour she requires a man and boat to take her lines to the quay. Who should pay for these boats on a Government form of Charter, the Owner or the Charterer? The Government form of Charter, as you are aware, states that all coal, Port charges, and Pilotage, have to be paid by Charterers. Would the charges for these boats come under the term "Port charges"? -Yours, &c., W. B. T.

Dundee, July 11, 1876.

[The service of the boat and use of the hawser were required in the management and navigation of the ship, and are not a Port charge in contemplation of the Charter.]

AGENTS AS CHARTERERS.

SIR,-A ship is chartered for a foreign Port, and the Charter-party signed by a firm in the United Kingdom as Agents for the Consignees of the cargo abroad. In discharging at the foreign Port the ship gets on Demurrage, and ultimately the Captain, not to detain his vessel, settles with the Consignees for the Demurrage, receiving only trifling compensation for his detention. Is it competent for the Owners to sue the Agent here for the balance of Demurrage, or will the Captain's receipt bar any further action as to the claim?-Yours, &c., A READER.

Oct. 4, 1876.

[The Shipowners in this case, by accepting the terms of the Principal and settling with him in a foreign Port, would, in our opinion, relieve the Agent who acted as Charterer in the United Kingdom from all further liabilities.-(See a leading article on "Agents and Charterers" in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Sept. 23, 1876.)]

OPEN CONDITIONS AS PER CHARTER-PARTY. SIR,-A ship was chartered by A B, who sent her cargo to C for sale, and the Captain had a lien on cargo for freight and Demurrage. A B, who loaded the cargo, endorsed the Bill of Lading over to C, and the Bill of Lading contains the clause "he or they paying freight for the same and other conditions as per Charter-party." Who, in that case, would be liable for Demurrage? The word Demurrage does not appear on the Bill of Lading. Could C be sued, or only the Charterer, A B? THE CHARTERER.

Liverpool, Oct 11, 1877.

[The Bills of Lading stating that the Receiver of the cargo was to pay the freight "and other conditions as per Charterparty," those other conditions, involving a liability to make payments, would include Demurrage, and therefore the Bill of Lading holder would be liable; but if he fails to pay the Demurrage, and the cargo has been parted with, the Charterer might be sued.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

GRAIN CHARTERS.

SIR,-Referring to an article which appeared in your issue of the 3rd inst., and to certain correspondence from your "Subscribers," permit me to offer a few remarks upon the terms of the Charter-party to which you refer, and upon the reading of which there appears to be such diversity of opinion. I believe it has been the custom in the Baltic Trade, for some years past, to ignore the imperial quarter entirely for the purposes of freight, and to compute each quarter of grain at so many lbs. weight. Thus, for instance, a quarter of Russian wheat is computed at 496 lbs., rye 480 lbs., linseed 424 lbs., barley 400 lbs., and oats 320 lbs. This standard of weight in no way interferes with the different rates of freight proportioned by the London and Baltic printed scale; and if the ship's freight is fixed at a given rate for a certain grain, and other descriptions, if shipped to pay in proportion, according to the London and Baltic printed rates, the money is computed precisely in the same way as if you were dealing with an imperial quarter, the only difference being that it is agreed between Merchant and Shipowner that a quarter of wheat shall weigh 496 lbs., a quarter of rye 480 lbs., a quarter of linseed 424 lbs. and so on, instead of the quarter being computed as per imperial quarter measure. Your "Subscribers" say they took rye to Amsterdam. According to their charter the rate for Amsterdamn is specified at 2s. 9d. per quarter for wheat. I take it, therefore, that the Merchants will have to pay for the rye 2s. 6·525d., or 74 per cent. less than the wheat, according to the London and Baltic rates, for every 480 lbs., that being the weight of rye which is to constitute a quarter according to Charter. From Sweden, America, and other countries, the weight of the quarter slightly differs; but I need not go into that matter, as it is irrelevant to the point at issue. London, Oct. 9, 1877.

J. B.

[Our Correspondent states that Charter-parties set forth the different weights of grain, and yet that they are not to be taken as any standard of proportion to each other. We car. but hold that they are mentioned to regulate the settlement of freight.]

REFUSAL OF CHARTERED SHIP.

SIR,-I fixed a vessel by a Liverpool Broker from Pensacola to Great Britain, quoting her size 230 P.S. On receiving the Charter, her size was therein converted by the Broker into 460 register tons or thereabout, with the usual terms "that the Charterer bound himself to deliver a full and complete cargo." The vessel's measured size, in registered tons, was about 560. On being informed by another Broker of the difference of size between that quoted for cargo, according to her intake in Petersburg standard and her measurement tonnage, the Charterer gave notice that she would not be allowed to take in cargo in Pensacola on account of the same; and on arrival there he refused to acknowledge the Charter, and no cargo was delivered by him. The Captain of the ship, however, did not protest on this occasion against the Charterer. Was the Charterer not obliged to deliver cargo on the named Charter-at all events the quantity representing 460 tons register; and, further, would he not have been liable to the penalty for non-fulfilment of the Charter when the Captain had proceeded legally against him, and protested on this occasion?-Yours, &c.,

JEAN B. LINAAE, Shipowner and Agent. Sandefjord, May 4, 1877.

[The ship was offered as capable of carrying 230 Petersburg standard of timber, but in the contract of affreightment she was represented to be about 450 tons, whereas she registered 560 tons. There may be a doubt as to whether the Charterer in this case could be compelled to find a cargo for a ship of 560 tons when he has agreed to load one of 450 tons. -(See letter "What is the meaning of whereabouts," at page 188, and "St. Petersburg Standard," page 131, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)-As there was no concealment of the ship's name or nationality, the Charterer should be sued for not loading a quantity equal to fill a ship of 450 tons.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

RUSSIAN FINES AND ENGLISH CHARTERS. SIR,-Referring to "A. G.'s" letter in your impression of the 15th inst., and to your leading article on the 20th of December, we venture to ask your advice in our own case. In August last we chartered our steamer to a firm in Newcastle, to load a full and complete cargo of general merchandise for Cronstadt. Just as in "A. G.'s" case, when the steamer was loaded, the Charterers had neither Bills of Lading nor Manifest ready, and it was verbally arranged that our Agents should sign the Bills of Lading for the Captain, and that they should be forwarded to Cronstadt by post the moment they were ready. The Charterers assured the Captain he might proceed to sea, as the Bills of Lading should follow in time to meet him, and, at the worst, a fine of a few roubles would be imposed. The ship made a rapid passage out, and, on arrival, found no Bills of Lading. The Captain made out the best Manifest he could from the cargo book, which, in the end, proved correct, except the short delivery of some bricks. The difference between our case and "A. G.'s" now begins. His steamer was fined 900 roubles, or say 130., which he has been unable to recover, but in our case the Receiver of the cargo, who was the Charterer's Agent, holds back 4001. of our freight, declining to pay us upon the ground that he cannot ascertain how much the ship will be fined. Our Charter contains, as " A. G.'s" does, the usual clause under which the liability of the Charterers ceases when the cargo is on board. We have made repeated application to our Agents in Cronstadt to collect the balance, but they reply that they are powerless. What are we to do? SHIPOWNERS.

[The question here raised is by no means free from difficulty, but, in our opinion, the Charterers in England would be liable for all the costs incurred if the fine was the result of their neglect; and they would be the parties to sue.-(See Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., page 59.)]

READY TURN CHARTER-PARTY. SIR,-When lying in Middlesborough I received a letter from a Broker, stating that if I would tow round to Sunderland he would get me 71. per keel coals for Campbeltown. I wired him back that if he would get me 71. 2s. 6d. and a ready turn, I would accept it. He wired me in answer to this that my offer was accepted, and that I would be loaded with all despatch. I wired him back to send me a message to Sunderland as to the name of the person who was to load me there. I lay five days in Sunderland before I got an answer from the Broker, and when I received a letter on the fifth day he sent a Charter for me to sign, which I declined to do, as the coals that this Broker wanted could not be procured, the colliery men having struck work. As I had no stamped Charter, I thought I was free to charter with another Merchant for a different kind of coals, and did so. I had to lie in Sunderland 14 days before receiving a pound of any kind of coals. As the Broker is pursuing me, am I liable to pay any damages? W. M.

Inverness, Sept. 21, 1877.

[The Broker was authorised to enter into the agreement on our Correspondent's behalf on condition that the vessel had a ready turn. A ready turn could not be obtained, and therefore the contract could not be set up.]

REFUSAL TO SIGN CHARTER.

SIR, The Captain of a vessel was paid his expenses to go and personally examine a cargo of wood that was offered to him, and the next day he agreed with the Merchant to take the wood at 78. per ton and two guineas gratuity, giving 16 days for loading and discharging. He made this agreement with the Merchant in presence of the Shipbroker, but the Captain subsequently refused to sign the Charter-party or to take the cargo. He (the Merchant) being put to considerable inconvenience and loss, would an action lay against the said Captain? Yours, &c., FREIGHTER.

Limerick, Nov. 8, 1876.

[If it could be proved that the Master agreed to sign a

CHARTER-PARTIES.

Charter-party for the carriage of the wood, and that he afterwards refused to do so, and the Merchant has sustained loss in consequence, he will have a claim for damages, which he can enforce in a Court of Law.]

REFUSAL OF CHARTERED SHIP.

SIR,-Referring to a letter headed "Refusal of Chartered Ship," in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of the 25th ult., I beg to say I am the Owner referred to, and the writers of the letter, calling themselves "Subscribers," were, as the letter shows, the Brokers who effected the Charter. A short time before the Charter was offered I informed the Brokers that I thought the ship would sail about the middle of January; but when the Charter was sent to me for approval, with the words inserted, "to be sailed by the 7th to the 10th January 1876," I refused to accept it, and stated to the Brokers that I could not and would not give any undertaking as to time for sailing. Being midwinter, it was impossible for me to say what time might be expended in repairs; in fact, I did not then know what amount might be required, the ship having been ashore. The words "to sail, &c.," were therefore struck out, and the words "in dock" inserted instead, and the Charter was again sent to me, and I approved of and accepted it as altered. I enclose copies of both Charters for your guidance. 1st. If, therefore, the Brokers under these circumstances represented to the Merchants my first communication, but not the latter one, would it be such a "verbal understanding outside the Charter" as would preclude me from recovering compensation against the Merchants for breach of Charter? 2nd. If so, have I any claim upon the Brokers? 3rd. When the ship arrived at New Orleans was it sufficient to lay the 16 working days before chartering, or ought the ship also to have laid out the 10 days on Demurrage as well? 4th. Was it necessary to lay at all, as the firm representing themselves to be the Charterers' Agents refused to supply a cargo from the first arrival of the ship?-Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER.

Whitby, Aug. 25, 1876.

[In the original copy of the Charter-party which was not accepted were the words-" to sail by the 7th to the 10th of January." In the completed instrument, signed on the 17th of December, that stipulation does not appear. It follows, therefore, that there was no written condition as to the sailing of the ship at the particular date other than the "said ship being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient speed, sail and proceed to New Orleans." 1st. If the verbal understanding is not to govern the contract, the written agreement must stand, in which latter document it was stipulated that the vessel was tight, staunch, &c., on the 17th of December. 2nd. The claim on the Brokers would be questionable. 3rd. Unless notice of refusal of Charter is given, it is customary to lay out all the days agreed upon for Demurrage. 4th. (See answer to No. 3.) For further information see page 67, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and page 53, Vol. II.]

DECK CARGO UNDER CHARTER-PARTY. SIR,-The Master of one of our steamers in Canada loaded a complete cargo of oats as per Charter-party, and, without the sanction of the Charterer or his Agent, took on deck a few horses and landed them at the Port of Discharge in England. The Charterer now demands full freight on the horses. Can he claim full freight, or only the loss or damage he can prove to have sustained ?-Yours, &c., South Shields, Sept. 26, 1876.

SHIPOWNERS.

[For goods loaded on deck, in the absence of usage or stipulation in respect of the use of that part of the ship, the freight is payable to the Shipowner.-(“Neill v. Ridley," Exchequer.) Unless the Charterer contracts for the use of the entire ship, and consequently the deck space, and he fills the cabin, the rate of freight is then a question for the jury,

CHARTER-PARTIES.

and not necessarily the sum mentioned in the Charter-party. -("Mitcheson v. Nicol," Exchequer.) Unless, therefore, the Charterer contracts for deck space, the freight for the horses would belong to the Shipowner.]

LOADING WITHOUT A CHARTER.

SIR, I had a schooner that went for a cargo of coals to a certain wharf at Newport, and was berthed alongside the wharf to load on Dec. 9, and did not finish loading until the 21st. This vessel is only 60 tons register. How many days ought they to keep her to load? The Captain had no Charter-party, but simply handed the manager at the wharf an order to load his vessel for a coal merchant on this side, which it is usual to do.-Yours, &c., A SUFFERER. Dec. 28, 1876.

[When a vessel of 60 tons burthen is on turn and in berth she might be laden in a few hours; but any delay beyond two days would be so unreasonable as to give a claim for Demurrage.]

EAST LONDON CHARTERS.

SIR, I arrived here on the 29th of September with a cargo of railway materials for Government, and charter the ship to be discharged in the usual and customary manner, and 10 days are to be allowed on Demurrage. An Address Commission is stipulated for of 2 per cent. to Charterer's Agent in London, in lieu of consignment in East London. My Consignee's Agent here refuses to do the ship's business without we pay 2 per cent. on freight amount, due here again, five guineas for ship's business, and 24 per cent. for what they call collecting freight. I find that I have to wait my turn with all ships that have cargoes for companies, as well as those for Government. The Government has but two surf boats of their own, but employs the companies' boats. When steamers come in, a sailing vessel seldom gets a boat at all. What with bad weather and steamers the vessels of 500 to 600 tons are detained four months and upwards in discharging and ballasting in this wild roadstead. There are now 18 ships on turn before me, eight of which have not commenced. Some of them have been already here seven weeks. There are no proper means to supply ships with water. A private person has a small boat that carries six casks of 50 to 60 gallons, and charges 10s. 6d. per cask, and the water is bad. Again, if a ship parts or fouls another, she has either to go to sea or on the beach, or perhaps founder. There is no assistance to be had here. Though the Government has a tug in the river she is seldom used, and never to assist a ship in distress. Ships and their crews are exposed to great danger under such circumstances. 1st. How long can they keep a vessel of 300 tons burthen for their own convenience? Can she go to the nearest Port and discharge? 3rd. Can Demurrage be claimed after any such time? They have not sufficient boats to give half the number of ships anything like despatch. 4th. Can this amount of Commission be recovered from the parties in London, as we have got to pay it over again here ? Yours, &c.,

2nd.

SEVERAL SHIPMASTERS.

East London, Oct. 17, 1876.

[1st. A ship cannot be detained for the convenience of the Charterer any unreasonable time; but what would be deemed unreasonable in East London would depend upon the number of vessels and the custom of the Port. An unreasonable custom, however, would not be binding. 2nd. With regard to going to another Port from the roadstead of East London, we have answered the question several times.-(Sce Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II., page 87.) The expense would fall on the Shipowner. 3rd. If the vessel has been detained through other vessels discharging before her, or other causes, the Owner would have a claim for Demurrage. 4th. If the Address Commission payable to Charterer's Agent in London was to free the ship from all Brokerage or Commission charges at the Port of discharge, the amounts paid at East London would be recoverable from the Charterer.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISH CHARTER. SIR,-Referring to the letter in your excellent Journal of the 25th ult., and your very able reply thereto, allow me to trouble you again on this subject. The vessel referred to was chartered to proceed from Cadiz to St. John's with salt, thence to the Labrador coast (if required), and load a cargo of first new fish in turn, "Merchant having the option of cancelling the Charter-party should the vessel not arrive at St. John's by the 20th of July." She arrived at St. John's on the 20th of June, was kept there with her salt in (occasionally taking out a few tons) for 47 days, and 12 days afterwards waiting Merchant's orders for the Labrador coast, whilst vessels arriving out about the same time were discharged, made a voyage to Sydney (C.B.), back again to St. John's, received orders for Labrador, and sailed before this vessel. Others arriving out four, five, and six weeks afterwards for other Merchants were despatched in 10 or 12 days for the Labrador coast, some of which are loaded with first new fish, and are on their passage back. A vessel has also arrived in England with new fish. On application to the Merchants for Demurrage-viz. 47 days at St. John's with salt on board, less, say, seven days for discharging &c., or 40 days at 4d. per ton register, 59 tons, equal to £39. 6s. 8d. -they return the account with "compliments," adding that their Agents have not made any departure from the conditions. of the Charter-party, that they are not liable for Demurrage, and refuse payment thereof on plea of custom. I enclose copy of the Charter-party for your perusal. 1. Is the Owner's claim a good and just one, and would the 12 days waiting for orders also count for Demurrage? 2. Has the Owner a lien on the cargo of fish for alleged amount due? 3. What is the proper course open to him for recovery of same?-Yours, &c., SUBSCRIBEŘ.

Porthleven, Sept. 11, 1876.

[1. If vessels were laden with new fish before our Correspondent's ship, and out of turn, he would have a good claim under the contract for Demurrage, notwithstanding any custom of trade. No Port of call was stipulated for. If, therefore, on arrival at a discharging Port in the United Kingdom, the vessel was kept for 12 days before the order was given, those days would count on Demurrage. 2. No lien is given on the cargo for Demurrage, and it cannot be held for the same. 3. The Charterers may be sued.]

LUMP SUM.-DOUBTFUL CHARTERER. SIR,-I fixed my vessel on the round for a lump sum, with an advance here and abroad, the collective amount of which falls short by far of the single current freight out. I am now informed by unbiassed persons that my Charterers are almost totally unknown to the Shipping public, and that my Brokers (friends of mine) and myself have been cruelly duped; that when I arrive out, and have delivered my cargo, I will have to whistle for the second advance; and, in fine, that the probability of my getting a cargo home at the calculated rate of freight I have is an improbable one, and such as deserves no consideration on my part. In consequence of this, I and my craft will be left empty on the lonely water of a river several thousand miles south of this. Now, Sir, before leaving here on my fool's errand, let me beg the favour of your advice, which I reckon by far more worthy than the prospect of this my adventure. Can I withhold the cargo outward when there till the second advance is forthcoming? May 23, 1876.

SHIPMASTER.

["Shipmaster" would be bound to fulfil the Charter unless he can prove fraud and collusion. Mere rumour or suspicion of the financial stability of the Charterer would not dissolve the contract. If the vessel is engaged for a lump sum with an advance in England, another advance abroad, and the balance to be paid on delivery of the homeward cargo, and no lien is given on the cargo under the Bills of Lading, the cargo could not be held at the outward Port. Our correspondent should be the best judge as to whether he should cancel the Charter and abide the result.]

Ꭰ

CHARTER-PARTIES.

FAREHAM UNDER CHARTER.

SIR.-I have a Bill of Lading to discharge a ship at Fareham, Port of Portsmouth. On arrival the Captain refused to bring the vessel to Farcham, saying he was to discharge afloat, agreeable to Charter-party signed at Konigsberg, which I had no notice of. The Charter states-" to discharge at Boulogne or not further west than Southampton." The Shipper says I have nothing to do with the Charter-party, the Bill of Lading being the last document, and no mention of discharging afloat in it. The vessel could not come within three miles to lie afloat. I sent a barge, at an expense of 51., and agreed to pay the Master 177. 10s. more to come to the quay, which he did. The Shipper says I have no right to pay it, as it was obtained under false pretences, the Master being bound to come to Fareham. I have refused to pay, and am now threatened with an action.-Yours, &c., Fareham, Jan. 27, 1877. AN OLD SUBSCRIBER. [The Master of a ship on signing Bills of Lading has no power to alter the terms of a Charter-party; and, if he does so without the authority of his employer, he would be liable. The Bill of Lading did not stipulate that the ship was to discharge aground, and therefore the Master would not be justified, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, in placing his vessel where she would receive damage. It would be the duty of the Merchant to find craft to lighten the ship, so that she might lie afloat at Fareham.-(See pages 121 and 191, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

MARKET PRICE OF COAL UNDER CHARTER. SIR,-In many outward Charter-parties of steamers it is stipulated that the steaming coals required during the voyage shall be taken at the various stations abroad from the Charterer's Agents "at current market price," often resulting in a higher price being charged than other equally well-known firms are charging to vessels free for coaling. May I beg you will give (in the interests of the many who suffer) your interpretation of what may reasonably be considered from time to time the current market price at, say, Malta, where there are many equally respectable coal agents competing for business, whose prices rise and fall independently? Does the current market price of the particular agent under Charter fairly meet the spirit of the agreement "at current market price," assuming that he is fortunate enough from various causes to be able to keep up his prices some days longer than an equally respectable neighbour, whose freedom in the matter of contracts or business may enable him to give the fullest benefit to those vessels that are free ?-Yours, &c. Dec. 26, 1876. MONOPOLY.

The market price is the current rate at which coals can be bought at market on any particular day. If a vessel arrived, and her cargo of coal was purchased on the market or openly, that would be the market price of the day. The selling or retail price of any one Merchant would not govern the market price, for the latter is the wholesale or purchasing price.]

SUB-CHARTERING.

SIR,-Can a Merchant who has chartered a steamer for six months upon the ordinary form of Charter, and without any clause giving him permission to re-charter or to re-let the boat, re-charter the steamer? And are the Owners obliged to carry the terms of the Charter out, working for a second Merchant, the first pocketing a profit upon every voyage?Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER.

Dec. 13, 1876.

[The contract would stand between the original Charterer and the Shipowner as to all liabilities; but the Charterer could sub-charter the vessel.]

PERUVIAN GUANO CHARTERS. SIR,-I have perused your reply in your Journal of the 10th inst. to my inquiry under this heading, but will you

STAMP ON CHARTER BY TELEGRAPH. SIR,-In the reply to "Master Mariner," in page 84 of Vol. II. of Maritime Notes and Queries, it is said-" A Charter by telegram is a written agreement, and, if stamped in accordance with the Act, would be evidence of contract." In this case I presume reference is made to the original telegram handed in to the Post-olice. I would ask whether the Post-office copy could be stamped in the same way, and made available then as evidence of contract?—Yours, &c.,

Barrow, July 27, 1876.

A. B. E.

[If a telegram has been sent, and the terms mentioned therein accepted, the copy of the telegram and reply, if stamped, would be evidence of contract.-(See "Stamp on Charter-parties," page 1, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

IRVINE UNDER CHARTER.

SIR,-Does the following range of Ports in a Timber Charter include Irvine, or can it be so construed, viz. :— "West Coast of England and Wales, Clyde, and East Coast of Ireland, Glasgow and Liverpool excluded"?—Yours, &c. SUTHERLAND & MAILLER,

[Irvine is on an Estuary or Firth of the sea, and is situated on the River Irvine, and not on the Clyde, and, consequently, is not a Clyde Port.]

CHARTERING BY TELEGRAPH.

SIR, The Captain of a vessel engaged us as Brokers to procure him a freight for Para, and being quoted one by A B, also Shipbrokers here, we offered the ship at 17s. per ton. A B wired to CD, at Liverpool (who, it appears, are also Brokers only in this matter), and received the following reply at 4 o'clock P.M.:-"15s. 6d. free, 17s. is customary; discharging afloat; other terms your message; vessel fixed; subject immediate confirmation." To this, after seeing us and the Captain, A B replied at 4.30, accepting freight. This telegram they acknowledge having received already at 5 P.M. A B told us that the ship was fixed. We repeated the same to the Captain, who told his Owners. The Brokers say that the telegram came too late, and now only offer 157. 1. Do you not consider half-an-hour from the time a message is received until the reply is given is "immediate confirmation" within the meaning and custom of the Shipbroking trade, especially when this message was handed in at Liverpool at 3 and the reply received at 5? 2. Are they not also bound by their message and letter next day, saying, "Charterers say Elim accept; have telegraphed for name coals"? 3. If So, which is the legal way for Captain to go? Should he sue the Liverpool Brokers direct for difference in freight, damage, and detention, or sue us, and we sue A B?-Yours, &c., Newcastle, Dec. 18, 1876. SHIPBROKERS.

[The paper on which a written telegram is inscribed may be stamped within seven days on paying the penalty of 4s. 6d., or within one month on the payment of 107. A written telegram has been admitted as evidence of contract between parties, and would be binding (if stamped) in the case mentioned by "Shipbrokers." The confirmation, in our opinion, was immediate.-(See page 1, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.) The Shipowner would be the party to sue A B, and our Correspondent and the Master would be witnesses in the cause.]

CHARTER-PARTIES.

CHARTERING WITHOUT AUTHORITY. SIR,--Being at Plymouth in the month of May last, I called on a Broker, who told me he could procure a cargo of limestones to be shipped at Plymouth for Hayle. I accepted his terms, my vessel carrying 120 tons. I found that the Merchant to whom the Broker directed me to load could not procure more than 60 tons, which I refused to take. The Broker then directed me to another Merchant to load a full cargo of 120 tons of limestones for and on account of Merchants at Hayle, for which I paid the Broker 11s. 6d. commission. I sailed from Plymouth in May, and arrived at Hayle in June. On my arrival at Hayle the Consignees refused to take the cargo, stating that they did not know the Broker, and never gave orders to ship any limestones on their account. As the Consignees objected to take the limestones at Hayle I could get no purchaser for them there. After being detained many days I sailed and came here, and sold the limestones at 9d. per ton less than the freight I was to have received on discharging at Hayle. Who is liable to pay for the stones and detention of the vessel, with other expen-es?-Yours, &c., RICHARD HOCKING,

Master of the Lady Harvey, of Barnstaple. Appledore, Aug. 10, 1876.

[If the Merchants at Hayle did not authorise the Broker to charter the ship on their account, the Broker would be liable as Charterer for all detention of the vessel, and the balance of freight. The Merchants who found the cargo may have acted on the representations of the Broker.]

CLAUSE IN EAST INDIA CHARTER. SIR,-Are we to understand by the clause in the Charter -"the cargo to be brought alongside and taken from alongside at Merchant's risk and expenses," the Captain has to provide Stevedores to load his ship, and take the goods at his own risk from alongside and in the hold? Are not the Merchants bound to stow the vessel ? INQUIRER.

Hull, March 22, 1876.

[Under the clause quoted, the Merchant who sends goods for shipment agrees to deliver the goods alongside, and to receive them from alongside; but he has nothing to do with lifting the goods on or off the ship's deck, nor is he liable for the employment of Stevedores or the stowing of cargo in a ship's hold.]

SHIP NOT READY.

SIR,-In the beginning of December last I chartered a vessel to proceed to Scotland and there load potatoes; but about the 11th she put into a Port damaged. The Captain wrote to me, saying he would be ready to proceed in three weeks, but at the end of that time he was not ready, and I was obliged to ship the cargo. The Captain then wrote saying he would be ready in a fortnight. I then bought another cargo for him, but at the end of the fortnight he was not ready. I was again obliged to ship in another vessel, as the cargo was a perishable one. I am now full, and do not require any more from there, and the vessel is not yet ready. Am I justified, under the circumstances, in throwing up the vessel?-Yours, &c., A POTATO MERCHANT.

Feb. 9, 1877.

[If the repairs took so long a time to execute as practically to put an end to the commercial venture, the Charterer would be absolved from loading the vessel, and might cancel the Charter. (See "Ref sal of Overdue Chartered Ship," at page 66, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and "Insurance of Freight," at pages 53, 54, and 106, Vol. II.)]

GOOD AND SAFE PORT.

SIR,-I chartered my ship to load at Darien (Ga.) with a cargo of pitch pine for a good and safe Port in Great Britain, where the ship can always lay afloat. On signing the Bills of Lading I was ordered to West Hartlepool, or as near thereto as the ship could safely get. I arrived off there on the morning of the 5th inst., and took a Pilot, expecting to

CHARTER-PARTIES.

get into Old Hartlepool on the evening tide. At 2 P.M. a heavy sea rolled in, and I found it impossible to cross the bar, when the ship broke and capsized the windlass, and I was obliged to slip anchor with 30 fathoms of chain and proceed to sea. Next morning I was obliged to run for the Tyne, sea still heavy. Can I oblige the Merchant to discharge the vessel here, or must I wait here until next springs, or can I claim detention whilst waiting in the Tyne? My vessel can only get into West Hartlepool at top of springs and in smooth water. She draws 20 feet 2 inches water, 1,116 tons register.-Yours, &c., JOS. J. BROWN, Master of ship Edgar, of Yarmouth (N.S.).

North Shields, April 6, 1877.

[In our opinion, West Hartlepool is not a good and safe Port for a vessel with her cargo on board and drawing 20 feet 2 inches of water. If the Merchant refuses to lighten in the Tyne, the Master should discharge a portion of the cargo after advising the Merchant, and then proceed to Hartlepool. The Master should claim for all detention in the Tyne.]

LOADING AGROUND.-SAFE PORT.

SIR, I refer you again to my case. My first letter appeared in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of March 1, and the judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute in my favour in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of March 10, and now the Sheriff Principal has reversed the judgment. I have been in Port nearly two months, and have yet my cargo on board, as they would not take delivery in the dock. I must now submit, and take my vessel from a safe place to their jetty, where she will have to lay on stones. The Sheriff does not say anything about the safety of the vessel, but it appears that vessels must accommodate Merchants at all risks. Can I call a Board of Trade survey on the jetty to put me in the condition of knowing if my vessel would be in a seaworthy condition on leaving the said jetty? I am quite certain that there is a great risk, and why should I be forced to run such risk in a Port where there is a dock, and within 30 or 40 yards from the Merchant's store? I am at a loss how to act in the matter. I object to go to the said jetty. I enclose you the Sheriff's judgment. What is the real meaning of a "safe Port" in a Charter-party in a case like this? F. F. MÅLLET.

April 10, 1876.

[1st. The Board of Trade Surveyor would not be authorised to survey a jetty. The Sheriff Principal has given judgment against our Correspondent on the ground that the vessel, with her cargo on board, drew 8 feet 11 inches, that the minimum depth of water at the jetty at neap tides was eight to nine feet, and that the six or seven inches of mud could not have injured the vessel, as she would have been waterborne to a considerable extent. 2nd. If the vessel could have got alongside the quay with her cargo on board at spring tides, and be lightened before low water, that would constitute a safe berth.]

BALLYSHANNON, "A GOOD AND SAFE PORT."

SIR,-My ship, the Messina, came from Philadelphia (U.S.A.) with Indian corn for Ballyshannon. My Charterparty says "a safe, good Port, always afloat." The Pilot cannot take the vessel over the bar if she draws more than 11 feet, and she draws 13 feet. I get orders from the Merchant to go to Killybegs and stop for lightering until next springs. I stopped nine days and the lightering was not commenced. After that he said he would make me go outside the bar. I did not do so, as I feared to lose my ship. Who shall pay the detention, as my ship was ready nine days for discharging? The Merchant opened the hatch at Killybegs and took up 400 sacks to lighten the ship, and agreed to lighten the vessel sufficiently to get over the bar. Am I bound to go to Ballysha non?

E. B. LYCKE, Swedish barque Messina. Killybegs, May 6, 1876.

[If the ship was chartered for Ballyshannon, or ordered