7. Claim against Shipowner for not accepting Cargo.

1. The plaintiff has sustained damage by breach by the defendant of a charter-party of the 1st May, 1880, by which he agreed that his ship, the "C.," should forthwith proceed to P. and load a cargo of mules belonging to the plaintiff, and carry them to S.

2. The said ship did not forthwith or at all proceed to P. 3. The plaintiff had a contract with the English Government by which if the said mules had been forthwith shipped at P. and conveyed to S., the latter would have purchased them, and the defendant had notice of the said contract, and the said charter-party was entered into with reference to it.

1. The defendant did not enter into the charter-party alleged in the statement of claim or any other charter-party.

2. The plaintiff did not have the contract with the English Government mentioned in the statement of claim.

3. If he had, the defendant had no notice or knowledge of it; and if any charter-party was entered into, it was not with reference to any such contract.

4. After the failure of the "C." to arrive at P., the plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to charter another vessel to convey the said mules to S. for delivery within the terms of his alleged contract with the English Government.

8. Claim in an Action against Shipowner for refusing Service of the Crew in taking Cargo on Board.

1. By a charter-party dated the 1st of September, 1880, between the plaintiff and the defendant, of the ship "Argus," it was agreed that the "Argus" should proceed from L. to N., and there take on board a cargo of iron, and that in loading

the said ship the plaintiff should have the services of the ship's crew free of charge.

2. The plaintiff brought a cargo of iron alongside the said ship in lighters, but the defendant refused to take it on board for several days, and then refused to allow the plaintiff the use of the ship's crew in loading.

9. Action against Shipowner for Loss of Cargo owing to the Ship not being Seaworthy.

1. On the 3rd of June, 1880, the plaintiff shipped a cargo of pig-iron on board the defendant's ship, the "Excelsior," under a charter-party of the 10th of May, 1880, by which the said ship was to proceed to B. and there deliver the said cargo.

2. The "Excelsior" sailed on the 4th of June, and was lost at sea on the 5th of June, with the plaintiff's cargo on board. 3. At the commencement of the said voyage, the "Excelsior" was not seaworthy, and she was lost in consequence.

10. Claim by Shipowner for Freight.

The plaintiff's claim is for freight earned by his ship, the "L.," under a charter-party of the 1st of January, 1880, made between the plaintiff and the defendant.

11. Claim in an Action for Freight, pro ratâ.

1. By a charter-party, dated the 2nd of July, 1880, the defendant chartered the plaintiff's ship, the "Mary," to carry

a cargo of pig-iron from Hartlepool to Bombay at an agreed freight.

2. The said ship, the "Mary," was loaded with a full cargo of pig-iron, and proceeded on her voyage as far as Suez, when it was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the said iron should be discharged thereat, and that the defendant should pay £ to the plaintiff as freight pro ratâ for the portion of the agreed voyage that had been completed. The plaintiff claims £1850.

Defence and Counter-claim.
Defence.

1. It was not agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, as alleged in the 2nd paragraph of the statement of claim, nor was any agreement made.

2. On the arrival of the "Mary" at Suez, the plaintiff, without the consent of the defendant, unloaded the said iron, and caused it to be warehoused.

Counter-claim.

3. The defendant repeats the allegations contained in the last paragraph, and says further:

4. That the plaintiff, in breach of the charter-party, mentioned in the statement of claim, neglected to cause his ship, the "Mary," to proceed to Bombay, and deliver there the said cargo of iron, whereby the defendant has sustained damage.

Reply.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence.

2. The plaintiff as to the counter-claim says that it was agreed between the defendant and him that delivery of the iron should be accepted at Suez, and that the said charterparty should then be cancelled. The said iron was unloaded accordingly, and the plaintiff was discharged from any further fulfilment of the terms of the charter-party.

3. When the iron arrived at Bombay, the market price was higher than it was at the time when it would have arrived there had the said charter-party not been cancelled; and if the defendant has sustained any loss upon the sale of the iron, such loss was caused by his unduly delaying its sale.

Rejoinder.

The defendant joins issue upon the reply.

12. Claim in an Action against Shipowner for Damage to Goods shipped.

1. The plaintiff on the 30th of August, 1881, shipped a general cargo, including 100 bales of cotton, on board the defendant's ship, the "Philip," under a charter-party, of the same day, by which the defendant undertook that his servants and agents should load and stow the said cargo, and the "Philip" should proceed from Calcutta to London, and there deliver the said cargo to the plaintiff's order.

2. The plaintiff has sustained damage by the defendant's breach of the charter-party in this respect, that his servants so negligently stowed the said cargo along with certain casks of paraffin and petroleum, that 50 bales of the said cotton were injured and rendered worthless by the said paraffin and petroleum.

The plaintiff claims £600.

Defence and Counter-claim.

Defence.

1. The casks of paraffin and petroleum, mentioned by the plaintiff in his statement of claim, were delivered by the plaintiff on board of the "Philip," and he failed to give the defendant any notice of the contents of the said casks, and that they were of a dangerous and inflammable character.

2. The said casks were carefully loaded and stowed away by the defendant's servants, and the damage done to the plaintiff's cotton was not due to any negligence on their part.

Counter-claim.

3. The defendant says the agreed freight for the said cargo was £2500. The plaintiff has paid £2000, but he refuses to pay the balance.

The defendant claims £500.

Reply.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence.

Cheques.

See Bills of Exchange-Bankers.

Provision

Chose in Action (a).

1. Claim by Assignee of a Grocer's Bill.

1. On the 3rd of May, 1880, the defendant was indebted to John Smith, of Newtown, grocer, in the sum of £43 10s., for

(a) By the 25th section, sub-sect. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873, it of Judica- is enacted "any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the ture Act, assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other 1873, as to legal chose in action, of which express notice in writing shall have been assignment given to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim such debt or chose in action, shall be and be deemed to have been effectual in law, subject to all the equities which would have been entitled to priority over the right of the assignee if this Act had not passed, to pass and transfer the legal right to such debt or chose in action from the date of such notice, and all

of choses in action.