"about," and that where the capacity of the ship was 1,200 tons, 1,133 tons would be the measurement of a complete cargo.

A contract for the sale of nitrate of soda was in these terms: Sold, for, &c., about 500 tons of nitrate of soda, &c., to be ready for delivery on &c. ;" and it then proceeded to state-"It is understood that the above nitrate of soda is to form the full and complete cargo of the J. P., 345 tons register, now on her passage &c., to proceed to &c., and there load. In the event of the J. P. being unable to prosecute her voyage, then the sellers to deliver another cargo of about equal quantity, &c.;" the only grounds on which the seller was to be excused was the loss of the J. P., or other vessel substituted for her, on the homeward voyage. The J. P. could not carry 500 tons-Held that the contract was for about 500 tons at all events, and not for a less amount, being the whole that the J. P. could carry.1

If the loading has once been completed the charterer has discharged his obligations, even though it become necessary to unload again.

The plaintiffs, by a charter-party, agreed that their ship, the "Tiger," which the defendant had selected for the purpose, should go to Hjerting, on the coast of Jutland, or so near thereto as she might safely get, to be there ready to load a cargo, by the 10th of April; and, being so loaded, to proceed therewith to London, where they were to deliver

Bourne v. Seymour, 24 L. J. C. P. 202.

the same on being paid a lump sum for freight. The "Tiger" arrived alongside the jetty at IIjerting on the 10th of April, and there received the cargo from the defendant's agent, for which the master signed and delivered bills of lading.

The "Tiger" afterwards left the jetty with such cargo on her voyage to London; but owing to her draught of water, she was unable to pass when loaded over the inner bar, and returned, therefore, to the jetty where she landed the greater part of her cargo on the 21st of April. The captain then proposed to the defendant's agent to take on board from the jetty so much only of the cargo as the vessel could pass over the bar with, and to receive the rest of the cargo outside the outer bar from lighters, in which it was to be brought to the vessel, at the defendant's risk and expense. This the defendant's agent refused to do, and the Tiger" thereupon left the jetty, and proceeded with only a small portion of the cargo to London :-Held, that the defendant having loaded the vessel with a cargo at the jetty, with the captain's consent, could not be required to load a second time, and that the plaintiffs were, under the circumstances, unable to sue either for freight or for damages arising from the defendant's refusal to re-ship the cargo.1

A ship having loaded about three-fourths of a cargo of wheat at a quay in the river Orwell, left the quay and proceeded down the river to take in the remainder, in accordance with the usual practice.

1 General Steam Navigation Company v. Slipper, 31 L. J. C. P. 185.

On the way she got aground, and the master required the charterers to unload the wheat already shipped, that he might have the ship examined. They did this at their own expense, and, as time was important, they despatched the whole intended cargo to its destination in other vessels. A few days after, the ship having been repaired, the master asked for cargo, but none was shipped. It was held, that the charterers might refuse to load any further; apparently on the ground that the master had put an end to the charter-party.'

The charterer is not liable for a detention which occurs without any fault on his part after the loading has once been completed. Thus, where a ship was frozen into the port during the loading, and could not sail, owing to the ice, for some time after the loading was finished, the charterer was not liable to pay for that delay. So, too, where the ship's clearances could not be got, owing to the custom house having been burnt down, so that she could not get away.3

And where a ship was detained, after discharging at the port of discharge, because a small sum for certain dues on landing had not been paid by the consignee of the goods, it was held that the shipowner could not claim demurrage or damages for that delay. For he might at once have got away by paying the dues himself, and could have claimed repayment from the consignee."

Strugnell v. Friederichsen, 12 C. B. N. S. 452.

2 Pringle v. Mollett, 6 M. & W. 80.

3 Barrett v. Dutton, 4 Camp. 333; Connor v. Smythe, 5 Taunt. 654. * Moller v. Jecks, 19 C. B. N. S. 332,

Dead weight capacity.

The capacity of the vessel is often expressly guaranteed by the shipowner, more especially in charters at a lump freight, or for time. Such guarantees must be read with reference to the circumstances contemplated by the parties.

Thus, where a guarantee was given that the ship would carry "3,000 tons dead weight of cargo, upon a draught of 26 feet of water," and it appeared that both parties contemplated that the cargo might be loaded in a river, it was held that the guarantee applied to fresh water as well as to salt.'

By a charter-party it was agreed that the vessel should proceed to Glasgow, and there "load all such goods and merchandise as the charterers should tender alongside for shipment not exceeding what she could reasonably stow and carry, &c." It was provided that the freight should be a lump sum of 2,2007., and the charter-party contained this guarantee Owners guarantee that the vessel shall carry not less than 2,000 tons dead weight;" and this provision:-" Should the vessel not carry the guaranteed dead weight as above, any expenses incurred from this cause to be borne by the owners, and a pro ratá reduction per ton to be made from the first payment of freight." The cargo intended to be carried was a general cargo consisting in part of railway locomotive machinery, and a note was by consent of the parties written upon the margin of the charter-party, specifying the "largest pieces" of machinery which were to be included in the cargo The Norway, 13 L. T. 50.

by number, weight, and measurement. The charterers tendered a cargo not in excess of 2,000 tons dead weight, consisting of railway machinery, including locomotives and tenders, two parcels of coals, and general goods. The large pieces of machinery were much more numerous than specified in the marginal note. The vessel sailed with only 1,691 tons dead weight. It was not disputed that she contained a carrying capacity up to the guarantee; and it was admitted that 2,000 tons dead weight of the cargo tendered could not have been carried on the vessel unless the coal had been packed with the machinery, which was not done. The charterers claimed a deduction in the freight:-Held (reversing the decision of the Court of Session,) that the marginal note amounted to a representation, and the cargo being such a cargo as was not contemplated, and the fact being that the vessel carried less than the guaranteed dead weight because the charterers tendered large machinery in excess of their representation, they were not entitled to the benefit of the stipulation of reduction of the freight, and the whole lump freight was payable.1

Lord Watson in his judgment said:-"By the contract of affreightment upon which this action is laid, the appellants guaranteed that their steamship, would, over and above eighty tons of extra bunker coal," carry not less than 2,000 tons dead weight of cargo." With reference to that warranty it was

1 Mackill v. Wright, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 106.