The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-04-15 00:00:00

The plaintiff, Mr. Bold. is an African merchant iu this to wn,
and, in September, 183.3, entered into a contract with Mr.
Rayner, then an oil merchant of Liverpool, for the sale of one
hundred tuns of palm oil, at thirty guineas a tun, from vessels
expected to arrive in November or December. The con-
tract was entered into through Messrs. Roscow and Rigg,
brokers, of this town. The vessels, the Speedy, and the Char-
lotte, instead of arriving, as was expected, in November or
December, 1833, did not arrive until the following May, when
the defendant refused to accept the oil, alledging that the con-
tract was broken by the non-delivery of the oil at the expected
time. In consequence of this the plaintiff bad been obliged tct
sell the oil for what it would then fetch, and, instead of making
£3l 10s. a ton for it, only obtained £25 a ton, by which.he had
suffered a lossool£6-10s. a tun. He had also been at other ex-
penses in tarting, brokerage, warehousing, &c., which he other,
wise would not have been at.
Mr. Roscow, broker, was called and examined, and proved
the making of the contract, through him, by the parties. The
contracts of the buyer and seller were put in and read, mid there
appeared a verbal difference in them, one setting forth that the
buyer agreed to take one hundred tuns of oil at thirty guineas
a ton, ex Speedy and Charlotte; the other, ex Speedy or Char-
lotte.. • • • • •
His LORDSHIP deprecated this carelessness in brokers, which
sometimes led to very serious results.
On his cross-examination, Mr. Roscow did not know whether
or not twelve months was the time in which an African vessel
ought to make her voyage out and home.
• Mr. Amos Bigland deposed to being.a broker in Liverpool,
and extensively engaged in the sale of palm oil. He remem-
bered, early in May, 1834, a vessel called the Speedy arriving from
Africa, which was wrecked at the mouth of the. Mersey; she
had palm oil on board, which was damaged in consequence and
sold to another party. It was not merchantable oil, as dry
oil. It was usual to deliver oil on the quay side. He should
think if, by contract; oil were sold, expected to arrive by two
vessels, that the seller would have the option of choosing which
he would sell it from. The voyage to Africa varied very much
in length ;- it depended very much on whether the natives were
at peace or not. The Charlotte was expected some time
before she did arrive. It was thought she was lost. He should
think the defendant was bound to receive the oil by his contract
though the cargo did not arrive before the 12th of May. In
May, palm' oil was worth £25 per tun. Sometimes there was a
warranty put into a contract that vessels should arrive on .a
certain day, and if in that case they did not arrive the contract
was, of course, void; but, if there was no such specification, the
parties were bound to receive the oil, on the quav,whenever the
vessel arrived. He did not think the statement that the vessel
"was expected in a certain tune was a warranty.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—He was not aware
that this was a matter of doubt in Liverpool.
Mr. A LEXANDER.—Snppose the vessel arrived twelve months
after the time expected, should you consider that a performance
of the contract on the part of the seller. , •
Witness.—l have already said I have never, know it to the
contrary. It has always been the custom to take the cargo
whenever it arrived, but I do not recollect such an extreme
ease as the one put.
His LORDSHIP.—You consider it the custom to take the cargo
whenever it arrives under the circumstances of such a contract.
Witness.—Certainly.
His LORDSHIP.—The length of time can make no difference
in the principle.
Mr. ALEX AN DER,—No my lord; and if it might be ten years
it would show the absurdity of the custom.
Examination resumed.—Palm oil generally got less in price
as the year advanced towards autumn. ;
Mr. James Cosnahon examined.—He was captain of the
Charlotte, and sailed from Liverpool on the 12th December,
1832, on a bartering voyage to the coast of Africa. The vessel
was provisioned for twelve months, and he calculated he should
be out ten or eleven. He expected to have had a shorter pas-
sage both out and• home than he had, and did, not expect to
have staid more than six months on the coast instead of which
he had been obliged to remain nine. The " Speedy" went out
to attend him.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—He was anxious to do
his best for his employers and did,not think proper ,;.0 pay the
high prices which were asked for palm oil when he went out.
Oil was scarce and consequently high priced, owing to a.quarrel
amongst the natives, and that was the cause of his delay. He
might have paid the high price if he had chosen; the captains
of other vessels did so and got home sooner on that account.
Re-examined.—They received a commission on the cargo
after their returns, according to the amount it sold for.
Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that there was an item of expense
for cartage, porterage, brokerage, and warehousing, which they
should not otherwise have had to pay, which they also were en-
titled tu. The whole amount for this was £36; and taking the
average of the price in Slay, when the plaintiff was obliged to
sell the oil at £25 per tun, it left a loss to the plaintiff of £6.10.
a tun on the contract price, which would amount, on one hun-
dred tuns, to £650, and with the above item to £686.
Mr. Bigland by the JUDGE.—If vessels were lost, and the
cargoes arrived by other means, there might be some doubt
whether the owners were bound to deliver the cargo. If the ves-
sels arrived without the oil, the contract was void.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in defence, contended•that the contract was
undoubtedly entered into on the part of the defendant in the
expectation of the vessel arriving at a certain time, when palm
oil would be likely to fetch a certain price; and, if it did not
arrive at that time, but six months afterwards, when palm oil
was likely to be much cheaper, it was absurd to suppose that the
original contract was made with any other than the direct under-
standing that the oil would be received in December; the contract
was, therefore, void. He did not impute any fraudulent motive to
Mr. Bold. He had no doubt but that, when he made that contract,
be expected the vessel would arrive as stated in the contract.
He contended that the delay had arisen from the captain's over
anxiety to serve his employer; that he might, if he had chosen,
have made the voyage in the same time as others did.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said brokers should take no-
tice of the great responsibility they incurred in not making the
contracts of the buying and selling parties correspond. If any
dispute should occur in consequence, they would be responsible
to make the amount good. In Mr. Bold's note nothing was
mentioned of when the vessel was expected to arrive. In his
opinion expectation to arrive was notantended to mean a war-
rant to arrives it merely represented from the seller that the
cargo was expected to arrive in that time. The question was,
whether Mr. Bold had not a reasonable expectation that the
cargo would arrive in November, and did not make a fraudulent
representation for the purpose of getting a higher price ?
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £686,
with leave to move it to a higher court.
BOLD V. JUDSON AND ANOTHER.—(BEFORE A SPECIAL JURY.)
This case was brought on precisely the same grounds as the
last.
Mr. CRESSWELL, on the part of the plaintiff, said this was
precisely a similar case to the last.
Mr. ALEXANDER acceded to the same verdict being passed.
BOLD V. MARTIN.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Crompton appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman for the de-
fendant.
This was an action brought under similar circumstances to
the two preceding ones. It was brought to recover the amount
of difference in the market, due to the plaintiff for 30 tuns of
palm oil, sold by contract for £3O odd a ton. It was alleged for
the defence, that Mr. Roscow, the broker, through whose hands
the contract was made, had no authority to make such contract
on the part of defendant. The oil was afterwards sold for £25
a tun.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £144 7s.
THOMPSON V. M`XENZIE.
Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell
for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover a balance of wages
due to the plaintiff, amounting to £23, for working on the line
of railway between this town, and Manchester, by the defend-
ant, who was the contractor. The defendant refused to pay,
and told plaintiff be might go to law v. ith him about it—that he
never lost a law suit in his life. The several items of the bill
were proved.
The case was referred by consent to arbitration.

DUCKWORTH V. ALISON.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a builder,
and who contracted for the erection of a warehouse for the de-
fendant, for a balance of £B6, for work and labour done.
Mr. ALEXAN DER, on the part of the plaintiff, offered to refer
it to arbitration, but which was declined.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
MOORE AND OTHERS V. LYTHGOE.
Mr. Cresswell appealed for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander
for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a part
of the cargo of a vessel, the new Felix Solini, chartered by the
defendant, which had been shipwrecked near the Bahamas,
and the cargo sold by the master, and the amount remitted to
Mr. Lythgoe in specie. The various shippers had applied to
Mr. Lythgoe for their proportions of the sale, and an average
had been made out by Mr. Bushby, of London; Mr. Lythgoe
had, however, referred to give up the money. It was contended
for the defence that Mr. Lythgoe was willing to have paid the
money if the shippers would have given him a bond of indemn-
ity. The case was argued at length.
'His Lordship said if the cargo was sold by the captain there
was no doubt but the defendant was responsible, as the captain
was acting as his servant. If the goods were sold by somebody
else he was responsible as soon as he had agreed with the own-
ers as to their respective portions, which had been done in this
case by referring to Mr. Bushby. His opinion was that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—We will take your opinion.
Verdict fur the plaintiff accordingly.—Damages, £lB2 2s.
Three other cases precisely similar, in which the defendan
in this action was-also the defendant, depended on the result.—
Verdicts accordingly.