The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-25 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 25, 1851

ROLLS' COURT.-(.THIS DAY.)

ZULUETA V. TTRIE.—JUDGMENT.
The MASTER of the RoLLs gave judgment in this case,
which had been before the Court end in the Master's office
for the last three or four years. The plaintiffs aro the
firm of Zulueta and Co., of London, merchants, and the
defendants John Garnet Tyrie, Salurnine Carias, and
Lorenzo Ruits. In the spring of 1847, the plaintiffs had
chartered six vessels to take goods from Cuba to London;
and the son of Mr. Tyrie, the defendant, being in Cuba,
agreed to freight them at different consecutive periods,
with sabrigal and other hard woods, the property of his
father and partners, as a speculation for the English
market. The parties to the charter party were the
shipowners and the firm of Zulueta, and there was a
clause in the charter party in these words—" No goods
to be taken on board without the consent of the freighters
or their agents." Great stress was laid by the plaintiffs'
counsel on this clause, to show that they had the whole
control of the voyage and freight home. But it was
contended, on the defendants' part, that this was a cus-
tomary clause, only inserted to control the master, who
thus was debarred from taking cargo on his own ac-
count, a frequent occurrence in cases like this, when the
hard timber, being very heavy, lay in a small bulk be-
low, whilst there would be great room for light and
good freight between the timber and the deck. In fact,
the object of Mr. Tyrie, jun., was to have the control of
the ship, as to the intended cargoes of hard
wood, leaving the general control of the cargo
in Caries and nephew, who were to draw
bills of exchange upon Tyrie and Company,
of London, for the amount of the bills of lading, of car-
goes of hard wood shipped, and the charter parties were
to be assigned. The bills of exchange were to be cashed
at Cuba, or in Spain, in any way Carias and nephew
pleased. The bills were so drawn, accepted, and pain
by the defendants in due course. It was proved that a
merchant abroad concluding a charter party for a mer-
chant in London is expected to sign such charter party
so entered into abroad in his own name, and the owner
of the ship will not accept his signature as a mere
agent acting for a merchant in this country. The ten-
dency of a great body of evidence offered by brokers
and mercantile men went to prove such to be the course
of proceeding with respect to a charter party executed by
a merchant abroad, as agent, and that upon requests
made to the merchant, as the agent, he would, as a
matter of course, assign the charter party to the princi-
pal in this country, his customary charges thereon being
paid to him. The defendants' case denied that the
plaintiffs bad chartered the ships as principals, and their
counsel argued that even had they done so in la s, they
had acquired no interest in the freight for want of the
ususl notice. They were, therefore, to be considered
the agents of the shippers, Carias and nephew. It was
denied that they had, as principals, made any advances
tor these shipments, with the exception of one, the Wil-
liam Metcalfe, and that had been admitted,
settled and paid by defendants, to the amount of 4211.,
for a portion of hard wood carried home in that vessel.
The object of the bill was to obtain for the plaintiffs, it
they established their claim, the confirm as brokers in
the transaction, and the bill required that au account
should be taken of all dealings and transactions between
the plaintiffs and Caries and nephew; and that, in taking
it, Caries may in account be charged with all bills of
exchange by plaintiffs on their account, and also with all
sums advanced by the plaintiffs on the account of ser-
vices rendered in respect of the transactions and busi-
ness of the shipments made under the charter parties set
forth in the plaintiffs' bill, together with interest thereon.
His Honour, after going through all the facts at great
length, thought that the plaintiffs had no paramount
o
right or lien upon the cargoes or ships. The plaintiff
mild not compel h
toson
s n shuirp
their
saaci
was a natural consequence that when the
tsirns.g Cartes
refused
to ho
cargodrle toa and it
them,it
house iu Cuba ascertained that their bills had been dis-
honoured, that they should consign their cargoes to
other houses. The case of the Governor Arks right
wag, however, iliff-rent, the defendants having expressly
contracted to send the cargo to the plaintiffs, and bad in
fact drawn money upon it. It was the duty of the
plaintiff's, if they had any lieu or claim, to have made
it on the arrival of the first ship, witereas they din net
remonstrate or set up their supposed right fur some time
after. He thought that the cause must be dismissed,
and that the defendants were entitled to the whole of
their costs. With respect to the cargo of the Governor
Arkwright consigned to the delendant Tyrie when he
hsd obtained the full amount doe to him up 4.41 the cargo
and the costs of !he sun, he was to pay the remainder of
the money into court for the benefit of the plaintiffs.
Order accordingly.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sitlinlzs in Bane ..)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BRADBURY AND EVANS
The LORD ( MEE BARON aatri ht hat, Inttwa.ted that
judgment in the case of the tlrturiie) Gene; al V. Bred
bury and Evans would be delivered tins morning, nub ,s
one member of the court Was desirous of considering the