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

But whether those terms were £50 or £50,000 did not affect the contract of the defendants. They did not contend that as the whole cargo was shipped for a certain sum they should deduct a portion for what they had not received. They had made a contract with Messrs. Pirie for this coal and coke in Yokohama and the sub-contract between Messrs. Pirie and the ship did not affect them in any way except that the ship had a lien upon the cargo for the balance of freight. And this construction of the word “cost” was supported by the evidence of two mercantile witnesses called for the defence, one of whom had been master of ships for twenty years and had paid claims on charter parties, and who spoke to what he considered the reason able construction of this charter party.

The other witness, a frequent consignee of coke, also spoke to what he considered the reasonable construction. Both said the “cost” must be the c.f.i. cost in Yokohama. The plaintiff, however, set up a distinct agreement with Mr. Walter that the Cardiff price was to be paid, but that agreement was distinctly denied, and it had been shown that such an agreement would have been ridiculous on the part of Mr. Walter, so that counsel thought he need say no more than that there was no such agreement.

The master might have been under the impression, in speaking to Mr. Walter, that he was only to pay Cardiff price, but distinctly there was no such agreement. Of course if the Captain was estopped from denying the short delivery of coke it was hardly necessary for counsel to go into the evidence to show that there was a short delivery, and the evidence as to the displacement was of no importance whatever.

In any case the displacement scale had nothing to do with the defendants. In the first place the master spoke from memory of what took place 6 months before when he took the displacement of the ship. But he was compelled by Act of Parliament to enter his draught of water at every port in his official log book, and if he had wanted to bring that evidence before the Court he should have brought the log with him.

Mr. Lowder said he had it with him.
Mr. Walford said it was not produced.
Mr. Lowder said it was not called for, and it would not have been evidence.
The Judge said at any rate the Court did not see it.