The Australian Law Times Volume 12 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...when she started on her voyage, the point of time to which the jury's attention was directed by the primary judge when considering the question of seaworthiness, or unseaworthiness. Therefore, whatever risks were expected in the bill of lading were expected subject to the ever present engagement of seaworthiness. If in consequence of the ship being unseaworthy when she started on her voyage the plaintiffs suffered the damage in respect of which they claim, the defendants cannot set up any of the excepted perils as an answer to the claim, -Steel v. The State Line Steamship Company, 3 Appeal Cases, p. 72. We now come to the last and more serious contention on behalf of the defendants--viz., that the plaintiffs have sued the wrong parties. The jury found that the captain signed the bill of lading as agentsfor the defendants, the charterers, but their counsel contended before us that there was no evidence to support this finding, and further that upon the proper construction of the charter party and bills of lading, the master signed as agent for the owners of the ship, and not of the charterers. Dealing first with the evidence, irrespective of the documents, upon this point adduced at the trial, the master, Captain Brown, says, in cross-examination, "I signed some bills of lading at Houlder Brothers' otlice, at their request some at the owner's otlice, where the bills of lading had been sent. These bills of lading (the bills of lading in this action) came from Houlder Brothers' office, I signed all the bills of lading by Houlder Brothers' directions; they had advertised the ship for cargo." Then turning to the charter party we find that the contract, so far as it is material to the question we are considering, made between the owners of the ship and t...