The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-11-23

be had done In order to bind them as az a.sassie,
the ae, should have been between the original
parties OF should have been expressly and specifically
directed i6r. Ev.. sllS Even II the respondents
had directed this item 10 be Inserted In the salvage
elaiui il msy have been trom uncertainty Of their
legal liabilities, and desire TO take every preean
ton nowseit himself says he did this. Knowing
the vessel MAS uninsured, and some must bear
the loss aud also that be was al that time suthor
scd 10 act in the interest Of one Of the hbesus TO
receive the money which the respondents though,
Was fall payment. can net myself see any use in
inserting this item. as the account without ii shows
receip, of s. 40 against expenditures Of s. 0S aud
the balance Of Ss might easily have been covered by
interest commissions SC. Under no possible aspect
does this act bind the respondents as a recognition
OF such contract is elamc,, by the lieeants Al
len vs.. Killiuger. 5 Wallace 6Ss. The principals
intention depends on tae puyposs of the sgeney.
Am Lead Gases, s46 Liability incurred by rsii6ea-
tiou OF an agents acts depends upon the original ia
tcssioE thsi such &C; should DC done. Eastern r Co
vs. Brown, 6 Exeh-, Ss6
[Fisi,As snsl The last point is whether the char.
tervrs arr liable for the hire Of the vessel for SIX
months three months, or only until the time of her
loss. By their agreement, or from any rrasou they
clearly are not liable for six months since they did
not have The vvsse f0r that time, aud i, VAS their
right to decide whether 10 retain her over three
months. By wen settled law in England aI.d Amer
lea BY the doctrines Of the civil law and on prnei
pies OF natural equity. as the expression is popu
arly understood the respondents were Liable as they
admit they were. up 10 the time Of the loss. Cook
". Gowan, Is Gray. Isl aud cases there cited;
PSrSoas' shipping and Admy. so; Richards
SSarle, I Danes Abr, 67S; Pothier, Conirai dc
LOuage. n. lSe-l44; Bells Comm. 4S2. The Diff
Is in deciding whether the respondents have not
made themselves liable in any event for three
months. desire state fully the reasons in favor
If the Affirmative view. Taking the schooner in
full understanding OF her unhtness 20 meet the ~
pbOOns Incident to this ocean, they would probably
have been liable Tor three months payment II from
unwilngness to procred, they had returned TO port
within week. lf.;hry had put into another port
to repair, il the owners had been liable tor
rvpars, charter monry would be due for all the time
Of tue detention. Smiths Mere Law, S54; Flau-
ders' shipping. $50 II was an accident which
could have been foreseeu aud avoided by having the
schooner made seaworthy before sailing. The char
terers. by sid Of another vessel have received the
proceeds of their venture the profits being lessened
it is true by the share paid 10 the Clio for bridging
them back If in freight contract for the voyage,
the owners bad controlled the schooner, aud their
SCENTS bad obtained the Clio return the employees
and quicksilver for the respondents, the entire
freigh, money would undoubtedly have been earned.
Au Leading Cases, Hare and wallaee's Notes,
tile, Pro rata Freight"
1t may be urged that the completion of the
voysge by this vessel was no, condition prece-
dent any more than the success Of the venture
would be TO the payment OF charter money for the
full time agreed, because in taking vessel evident
" and pAlpaby unssaworthy, the oharterers the
risk for that time, and the risked and los,
the vessel. Knowing her condition, they might
have provided for pro rata payment in Of loss
and they be said to have biryd the vessel for three
months, taking TIE ekasess, and their liability not
resting principles Of general equity, but by force
Of an express agreement mSde With their eyrs open
for good consideration, and without entire tail 7
Gre Of Consideration, or partial failure in which
they were not equally at fault with the owners In
other words, they may be regarded paying not I
for three months Of the schooner, but for the
chances Of having the II seems TO DC settled I
By English sud American decisions, that if tene-
meut be destroyed by accidental IRE, the rent is i
nevertheless payable 10 the end OF the when ii /
Wss due, unless otherwise agreed Halleit "a Wy
lie, johns IA Allen Us. Culver, s Denio 294 Gales .
vs. Green, Paige So. Welles rs. Castle, 8 Guy
- H0lfzsppteI Barker, is Yes. ia Story's /
Equity 5 AS, Wash Real Prop. cd 1868 100 |
-0ufess that these views have much force in my
mind On the other hand, there i no reported case
hat I know which sanctions them, on the con-
nary both the common and civil law sppear to tx
he date Of The loss OF the vessel the termination
IF the contrast when the contract IS not afterwards
completed OF the goods in contract for freight are
lot fuslIy accepted BY the shipper his eonsguee or
-eut- Tue owners lose the vessel and tue freight
Or the OF the charter time. and the eharterers
lay for the actual use SiOry's BsiInsnis AZ. g.
!, A5b0t's Shipping OEuers also eau always in
ure the entire freight and the principle that
ne iusures risks not expressed, eharterers cannot
= held 10 have Insured the voyage by Implication OF
ysiver- On the whole therefore, sm satisfied that
here Is authority to require the respondents 10
y for the hire Of the schooner after the loss The
'rsyer 81 TIE iheilsnrs must therefore b. TsfspsL