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

The case was referred to the Supreme Court for China and Japan in Shanghai at a hearing on the 22nd June 1889 and the following was subsequently reported within the North China Herald [957] [958] : -

This was an appeal from H.B.M.'s Court for Japan in a case in which Capt. Meikle of the British ship Brynhilda sued for some $737, balance of freight on a cargo of coals and coke from Cardiff to Yokohama, which decision was given in favour of the respondents on the strength of a counter-claim in respect to short delivery.

Judgement was given on the 25th June 1889:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the court for Japan in a case where the plaintiff, master and part-owner of the British ship Brynhilda sued for a balance of freight due to him, by the consignees of the cargo. The defendants admitted the non-payment of the sum in question, but claimed to retain it under a stipulation in the charter party entitling them to deduct from unpaid freight the cost of cargo short-delivered and alternatively pleaded that by reason of the short delivery of 16 tons of coal and 7 ½ tons of coke, they had sustained damages which exceeded the amount of the claim, and which they were entitled to set off against it. The learned Judge in the Court below held that "cost" in the charter party meant prime cost, but he allowed the counter-claim and gave judgment for the defendants. The appellant in a written argument now submits that the findings of the Court below, so far as the counter-claim is concerned, were not well-founded either in law or on the evidence. It may be well that we should deal with the evidence first.

The first question of fact is whether 37½ tons pf coke were short-delivered. The plaintiff contends that the weighing of the coke (which was done on board the ship as it was taken delivery of) was not properly conducted, and was inaccurate. He urges that he suggested to the defendants that it should be re-weighed on shore which the defendants objected to on the ground that it had been already stowed and could not be re-weighed. The plaintiff appears to have acquiesced in this, and the learned Judge of the Court below was of opinion that both parties must be concluded by the result of the weighing. We concur in this view of the matter. If plaintiff was really dissatisfied with the manner in which the weighing was conducted, he should have protested against it sooner and in time to have it re-weighed. As it is, it appears to be much too late to re-open that point.