Volume Eleven - Pre-Victorian to the Present Day - some more aspects - A Dispute at Yokohama -  1889 . . .

With respect to the coal, on arrival here it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the plaintiff should allow a shortage of 16 tons in 1,608 tons, that was a shortage of about 1 per cent. When the bill was presented to the plaintiff under that agreement he found he had been charged on those 16 tons, not only the prime cost, but also for freight or insurance upon them. He maintained that by the original agreement which was made about a month before this conversation took place between him and Mr. Walter, the parties had agreed that the amount to be paid was the prime cost at Cardiff of the 16 tons.

But Counsel believed that agreement was denied on the other side, and the first question for the Court to decide would be whether or not the defendants were entitled to the cost of the 16 tons of coal plus freight and insurance, or whether they were only entitled to the prime cost of the coal. He would submit that both by the agreement and the terms of the charter party they were only entitled to the Cardiff or prime cost of the 16 tons of coal.

Now, with regard to the coke an attempt was also made by the plaintiff to come to an arrangement before there was any question as to weight — to a similar arrangement with regard to the coke - but the parties could not come to an agreement with regard to that and the defendants said they would have to weigh the coke out of the vessel.

They did so, and on the same date, December 4th, that the account current was presented by the defendants to the plaintiff the latter found himself charged with the sum of $560.24 representing the c.f.i. cost of 37¼ tons of coke alleged to have been short delivered — the shortage in coal amounting to $177. He was naturally very much surprised to find that there had been so much shortage of coke.

However, at that time a conversation took place between the parties, when the plaintiff said that if the defendants would agree to deduct the freight and insurance and charge him only the cost price of the coke, he would then agree that the shortage stated by them was correct, in order to avoid litigation and further trouble. That arrangement was never carried out; the parties could not agree to it, and the plaintiff would now contend that he was entitled to the full freight upon the amount of coke which was originally delivered on board the ship in the Penarth Dock.