ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES

H . OF L . ] _______Clan Line Steamers Limited v. The Boardof Trade. [ H . ofL . it s b e in g e s ta b lis h e d t h a t th e im p a c t o f th e

W estern F r o n t w as th e p r o x im a te cause o f th e loss, t h a t th e c o llis io n w h ic h th u s to o k place w o u ld ha ve been e x c lu d e d fr o m a n o r d in a r y m a rin e p o lic y b y t h e p e rils sp e cifie d in clause 19, a n d t h a t th e a d va n ce o f th e W estern F r o n t th r o u g h th e w a te r was, i n th e c ircu m sta n ce s, in it s e lf a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n . F o r t h is purpose t h e fa c ts m u s t be lo o k e d a t. W h e n a n assured is cove red e q u a lly b y tw o p o lic ie s he m a y be e n t it le d t o re c o v e r a g a in s t w h ic h e v e r p o lic y he chooses t o r e ly o n , b u t i f he is cove red in one e v e n t o n ly b y one a n d b y a n o th e r o n ly in a n o th e r e v e n t he has n o t a free cho ice t o e le ct w h a t p e r il he w i l l de cla re t o w in o n b u t m u s t be g o v e rn e d b y th e fa c ts o f th e c a s u a lty . I f th e tr u e v ie w o f th e fa c ts is t h a t th e C la n M atheson was a lre a d y a lo s t s h ip be fore th e im p a c t o ccu rred , th e sub seq ue nt e ve nts o n ly d e te rm in e th e m ode a n d m easure o f a loss, a lre a d y caused a liu n d e , O n th e fa c ts , W r ig h t, J . a n d , as I re a d t h e ir ju d g m e n t, th e m a jo r it y o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l, co n sid e re d t h a t t h is was so, a n d I agree w it h th e m . I f so, th e ab ove a rg u m e n t fa ils in lim in e , a n d th e W estern F r o n t was n o t th e cause o f t h is loss. I fo rb e a r t o c r itic is e t h e o th e r e le m e n ts in v o lv e d i n t h a t a rg u m e n t. H o s ­ t i l i t i e s o n ly te r m in a te d a l i t t l e o v e r te n years

ago, n o r w ere w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s ne cessa rily b r o u g h t t o a n e n d even b y th e A r m is tic e , a n d i n th e d e lib e ra te g e s ta tio n o f G o v e rn m e n t la w . s u its we do n o t k n o w w h a t f u r t h e r appeals m a y y e t a w a it d e c is io n o r w h a t a rg u m e n ts fo u n d e d o n th e “ w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s ” cases a n d Reischer v . B o rw ic k (7 A s p . M a r. L a w Cas. 493 ; 71 L . T . R e p . 238 ; (1894) 2 Q. B . 548) m a y need c o n s id e ra tio n in th e course o f th e m . A c c o rd in g ly , I w i ll o n ly v e n tu re t o a d d th is . I n a rg u in g q u e s tio n s o f p r o x im a te cause i n m a rin e in s u ra n c e , th e te m p ta tio n is a lw a y s s tr o n g t o re s o rt t o a m in u te a n a ly s is o f th e c irc u m s ta n c e s o f a c a s u a lty , in o rd e r t o place th e cause as p r o x im a te ly t o t h e c o n c lu s io n o f th e m as po ssible. I t is a n a tu r a l w a y , i n w h ic h t o a p p ly th e r u le as i t is la id d o w n in th e books.

I t h in k , h o w e v e r, t h a t L o r d B a c o n ’ s w a r n in g a g a in s t in q u ir y i n t o th e causes o f causes ap plies e q u a lly f o r c ib ly t o a m ic ro s c o p ic a n a lysis o f th e in c id e n ts o f a c a s u a lty as a m eans o f d is c o v e rin g th e p r o x im a te cause. H is p h rase appears t o m e t o a p p ly e q u a lly t o a n in f in it e ly in te n s iv e a n a ly s is as t o a n in fin it e h is to r ic a l re tro s p e c t.

I t h in k t h a t th e ap pe al fa ils .

L o r d Warrington.— O n th e n ig h t o f th e 2 2 n d -2 3 rd M a y 1918, in m id - A tla n tic , th e C la n M atheson, a s h ip b e lo n g in g t o th e a p p e lla n ts , was s u n k as th e r e s u lt o f a c o llis io n w i t h a s h ip c a lle d th e W estern F ro n t, in c h a rte r t o t h e A m e ric a n G o v e rn m e n t, m a n n e d b y n a v a l ra tin g s a n d c a r r y in g w a r stores t o N a n te s , t h e A m e ric a n base in F ra n ce .

T h e C la n M atheson was in c h a r te r t o th e B r it is h G o v e rn m e n t u n d e r t h e w e ll-k n o w n p ro f o r m a c h a r te r T .9 9 , u n d e r w h ic h th e G o v e rn ­

m e n t ta k e th e ris k s o f w a r, in c lu d in g p a r tic u ­ la r l y a ll consequences o f h o s tilitie s o r w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s .

T h e a p p e lla n ts c o n te n d t h a t th e s in k in g o f th e C la n M atheson was a consequence o f w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s , a n d t h a t a c c o rd in g ly th e G o v e rn m e n t, n o w re p re s e n te d b y th e resp on­

d e n ts , th e B o a rd o f T ra d e , is lia b le f o r h e r loss.

T h e resp on den ts, o n th e o th e r h a n d , in s is t t h a t th e s in k in g was an o r d in a r y p e r il o f t h e seas f o r w h ic h t h e y are n o t lia b le .

T h e q u e s tio n was re fe rre d t o th e la te M r . C la u g h to n S c o tt as sole a r b it r a t o r , a n d o n t h e 2 8 th M a rc h 1928 he m ade h is a w a rd in th e fo r m o f a special case. H e fo u n d as fa c ts a n d h e ld in so fa r as t h e y w e re q u e s tio n s o f la w :

(1) T h a t th e C la n M atheson was n o t a t a n y m a te r ia l t im e engaged u p o n o r c a r r y in g o u t a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n .

(2) T h a t th e re was no ne gligence on th e p a r t o f th e a p p e lla n ts o r a n y o f tho se in cha rge o f th e C la n M atheson.

(3) T h a t im m e d ia te ly b e fore th e c o llis io n t h e s te e rin g gear o f t h e C lan M atheson b ro k e d o w n a n d fa ile d t o o p e ra te a n d t h a t b y reason th e re o f th e s a id vessel sheered t o p o r t a n d across t h e course o f th e W e s te rn F r o n t .

(4) T h a t th e s in k in g o f t h e C lan M atheson was p r o x im a te ly caused b y t h e im p a c t o f th e W e s te rn F r o n t m o v in g in t h e course o f a w a r­

lik e o p e ra tio n w h ic h she was th e n c a r r y in g o u t.

(5) T h a t th e s h e e rin g o f th e C la n M atheson t o p o r t was n o t th e re a l o r p r o x im a te cause o f h e r loss w it h in t h e m e a n in g o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty .

(6) T h a t th e s in k in g o f t h e C la n M atheson was a consequence o f w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s w i t h in th e m e a n in g o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty , a n d h e a c c o rd in g ly h e ld , s u b je c t t o th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t u p o n th e q u e s tio n o f la w s u b m itte d b y h im , t h a t t h e s in k in g o f th e C la n M atheson was a consequence o f w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s w ith in th e m e a n in g o f t h e c h a r te r - p a r ty , a n d t h a t th e resp on den ts w ere lia b le t o p a y t o th e a p p e lla n ts th e v a lu e o f th e s h ip a t t h e t im e o f th e a c c id e n t v iz ., 265,000b

T h e special case was h e a rd b y W r ig h t, J . on th e 9 th a n d 1 4 th M a y 1928, w h o , in a v e r y c a re fu l a n d e la b o ra te ju d g m e n t, h e ld t h a t th e loss o f th e C lan M atheson was n o t a consequence o f w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s , a n d t h a t a c c o rd in g ly t h e resp on den ts w ere n o t lia b le .

O n a p p e a l t o t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a l t h a t c o u r t, o n th e 1 9 th J u ly 1928, b y a m a jo r it y (S c ru tto n a n d L a w re n c e , L . J J . ; G reer, L . J . d is s e n tin g ), a ffirm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f W r ig h t , J . a n d d ism issed th e a p p e a l. H e nce th e p re se n t a p pe al.

I t is unnecessary t o s ta te th e fa c ts in d e ta il.

I t is en ough t o sa y t h a t th e ships w ere s a ilin g in c o n v o y u n d e r e s c o rt o f sh ip s o f w a r a n d w ith o u t lig h ts , b u t i t is n o t c o n te n d e d , a n d in fa c t c o u ld n o t o n th e a u th o r itie s be succe ssfully c o n te n d e d t h a t t h a t in it s e lf was a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n : (B r it a in S team ship C om pany L im ite d v . The K in g (sup.), a n d Green v . B r itis h I n d ia Steam N a v ig a tio n C om pany L im ite d , B r itis h I n d ia Steam N a v ig a tio n C om pany L im ite d v . L iv e rp o o l a n d L o n d o n l i a r R is k s In s u ra n c e A ssociatio n L im ite d (sup.).

ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.

H.L.]

I t is a d m itte d on b o th sides t h a t th e W estern F ro n t was a n d t h e C la n M atheson was n o t engaged in a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n .

I t is also in m y o p in io n c le a r t h a t fr o m th e m o m e n t th e b re a k d o w n o f th e s te e rin g gear o c c u rre d — a m a t t e r o f fr o m tw o -a n d -a -h a lf to to u r m in u te s — b e fore th e c o llis io n , th e c o llis io n was in e v ita b le .

T h e q u e s tio n th e n is : W h a t was th e re a l o r P ro x im a te cause o f th e loss ? W as i t th e im p a c t o f th e W estern F r o n t a g a in s t th e side o f t j | e Clan M atheson, a n d t h a t a lon e, o r w as i t th e b re a k d o w n o f th e s te e rin g gear o f th e C lan M atheson re n d e rin g th e c o llis io n in e v it ­ able ?

I n Io n id e s v . U n iv e rs a l M a r in e In s u ra n c e Com pany (sup .) t h e m a in q u e s tio n was w h e th e r th e h o s tile a c t o f th e con fe d e ra te a u th o ritie s d u rin g th e c iv il w a r in A m e ric a in e x tin g u is h in g a lig h t o n Cape H a tte ra s was th e p ro x im a te cause o f th e s tra n d in g o f a s h ip o r w h e th e r th e ta c t t h a t th e m a s te r was o u t o f h is re c k o n in g was such p r o x im a te cause, a n d i t was h e ld t h a t th e la t t e r was th e p r o x im a te cause, a lth o u g h , i f th e l i g h t h a d n o t been e x tin g u is h e d , th e s tra n d in g w o u ld p ro b a b ly n o t ha ve h a p ­ pened. I n g iv in g ju d g m e n t, E r ie , C .J. gives some illu s tr a tio n s o n p . 286 w h ic h are o f v a lu e ln th e p re s e n t case. A s h ip d r iv e n b y an a tte m p t a t c a p tu re in to a n in h o s p ita b le b a y Tv,^ th e re d r iv e n ashore b y th e w in d a n d lo s t, t h e a tte m p t a t c a p tu re w o u ld be th e re a l a n d P ro x im a te cause, th o u g h th e loss w o u ld n o t ave ha pp en ed b u t f o r t h e v io le n c e o f th e w in d . n th e converse case th e s h ip succeeds in g e ttin g o u t o f th e b a y , b u t e n cou nters a gale w h ic h she w o u ld n o t ha ve e n c o u n te re d b u t fo r he d e la y a n d is lo s t. H e re th e p ro x im a te cause is th e gale, th o u g h b u t f o r th e a tte m p t a t c a p tu re i t m ig h t n o t ha ve been e n co u n te re d .

So here th e c o llis io n in a sense occu rred , in a s m u c h as i t becam e th e n in e v ita b le , as soon s th e s te e rin g gear o f th e C la n M atheson b ro k e

° w n , a n d I t h in k th is m is fo rtu n e s h o u ld be egarded as t h e re a l a n d p r o x im a te cause o f th e css, th o u g h t h e loss w o u ld n o t ha ve o c c u rre d i ad n o t th e W eslern F r o n t been in t h e p o s itio n n w h ic h she in fa c t was. I desire t o express agree m ent w it h a n d t o a d o p t th e re m a rk s o f S n m n c r in A de la id e Steam ship C om pany To« t K in g ( 1 6 Asp- M a r - L a w Cas- 1 7 8 ; 900 L ’ T ’ R e P- 161> a t p- 165 ; (1923) A . C.

“ m a t p ' 305)> th e case o f The W a r ild a : i r t Cn .damage is done b y tw o sh ip s c o m in g

0 C!<>b is io n , one b e in g engaged in a w a r lik e P e ra tio n , a n d th e o th e r o n a n o r d in a r y

« « a l voya ge , th e c o llis io n is a r is k o u rU1^f on th e m a rin e p o lic y , unless i t is ta k e n w i t b y b e in g p ro v e d t o be caused b y i t i ,e ° P eratio n s , a n d t h is p r o o f fa ils , w h e n o j,|s s ;° w n t o be caused b y th e a c tio n o f th e j n ' <er in charge o f th e c o m m e rc ia l o p e ra tio n .”

,riy. o p in io n the se re m a rk s a p p ly e q u a lly t j, f 6. 1* is p ro v e d , as I t h in k i t is in t h is case, shm t 6 c° i i i si ° n was caused b y th e fa ilu r e o f th e r e - i' ° °Tb e y . th e w i ll o f th e o ffic e r. F o r these sons I t h in k t h a t I am ju s tifie d in c o m in g

[H.L.

to t h e c o n c lu s io n t h a t th e ju d g m e n ts o f W r ig h t , J . a n d S c r u tto n a n d L a w re n c e , L . J J . are c o rre c t, a n d t h a t t h is a p p e a l fa ils a n d o u g h t t o be d ism isse d , w i t h costs.

L o r d Buckmasterc o n c u rre d .

A p p e a l dism issed.

S o lic ito rs f o r th e a p p e lla n ts , In c e , Colt, In ce , a n d Roscoe.

S o lic ito r fo r th e resp on den ts : S o lic ito r to the B o a rd o f T rade .

A p r i l 16, 18, a n d J u n e 14, 1929.

(B e fo re L o rd s Hailsham, Dunedin, Sumner, Buckmaster, a n d Atkin.)

Phcenix Insurance Company of Hartford AND ANOTHER V. De MONCHY AND OTHERS, (a)

O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L I N E N G L A N D .

In s u ra n c e — S h ip m e n t o f tu rp e n tin e — Loss caused by leakage — A m e ric a n certificate o f in sura nce— L im it a t io n o f tim e f o r recovery o f c la im — M e a n in g o f leakage.

T he p la in t if fs were interested i n a certificate o f in s u ra n c e w h ich was issued un de r two p o lic ie s o f m a rin e in s u ra n c e subscribed by the de­

fe n d a n ts i n respect o f 100 barrels o f p u re g u m tu rp e n tin e shipp ed fr o m F lo r id a to R otterdam . T he p o lic ie s p ro v id e d f o r p a y m e n t f o r “ leakages f r o m a n y cause i n excess o f 1 p e r cent, on each in v o ic e .” I t was the p ra c tic e o f the trade, at the p o rt o f shipm e nt, to gauge the barrels o f tu rp e n tin e a n d to express the re s u lt i n ga llo ns, a n d at the p o rt o f discharge to weigh i t a n d to express the re su lt i n k ilo g ra m s w ith an a llo w ­ ance f o r red u ctio n on account o f the v a ry in g tem perature c o n d itio n s o f 3.25 k ilo g ra m s to the g a llo n . The p o lic ie s also contained a s tip u la tio n p ro v id in g tha t no s u it o r actio n f o r the recovery o f a n y c la im sho uld be m a in ­

tain ab le i n a n y cou rt unless such s u it or a ctio n be commenced w ith in one year fr o m the ha pp en ing o f the loss out o f w h ich the c la im arose, but tha t lim ita tio n clause d id n o t occur i n the certificate. W hen the vessel was discharged a shortage i n respect o f the ga llo ns o f tu rp e n tin e shipp ed was ascertained to have taken place. The defendants ha vin g refused to p a y u p o n the g ro u n d tha t there was no sufficie nt evidence o f the loss a n d tha t the c la im was not in s titu te d w ith in the year, the present c la im was brought by the p la in t if fs on the certificate.

H e ld , (1) tha t the lim ita tio n clause was not one w h ich bound the certificate holder. The rig h ts o f the o r ig in a l p o lic y holder, w h ic h were con­

veyed to the certificate holder, com prised the rig h ts given by the p o lic y q u a lifie d by a ll the c o n d itio n s an d w a rra n tie s w h ich affected the n a ture a n d extent o f the in s u ra n c e granted, (a) R eported b y Ed w a iid J . M . Ch a p l in, E sq ., B a rris te r-a t-

L a w

H.L.] Phcenix InsuranceCo. of Hartfordandanotherv. De Monchyandothers. [H.L.

but d id no t im pose a n o b lig a tio n a ffe ctin g o n ly a lim ita tio n o f tim e w ith in w h ic h the rig h ts so given were to be e n fo rc e d ; (2) th a t an a ctu a l p h y s ic a l loss had been proved based u p o n the calcula tion s, a n d there was n o ,g ro u n d f o r im p u tin g th a t loss to a n y cause other than

leakages.

D e c is io n o f the C o u rt o f A p p e a l affirm ed.

Appealfr o m a n o rd e r o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l ( S c ru tto n , S a n k e y a n d R u s s e ll, L . J J . ) d a te d th e 5 th M a rc h 1928, a ffir m in g a ju d g m e n t o f M a c K in n o n , J . B y a c o n tra c t n o te d a te d th e 2 7 th J u ly 1923 th e re sp o n d e n ts, w h o h a d fo r m a n y ye a rs been e s ta b lis h e d in R o tte rd a m as dealers in tu r p e n tin e a n d o th e r p ro d u c ts , b o u g h t fr o m th e C o lu m b ia N a v a l Stores C o m ­ p a n y o f S a v a n n a h 100 b a rre ls o f p u re g u m t u r p e n tin e fo r s h ip m e n t fr o m J a c k s o n v ille , F lo r id a , t o R o tte rd a m . T h e y h a d in s u re d th e tu r p e n tin e w it h th e a p p e lla n ts , tw o in s u ra n c e c om p an ies, f o r th e v o y a g e . B y th e c e rtific a te o f in s u ra n c e d a te d th e 2 7 th A u g . 1923, w h ic h w as issued u n d e r th e tw o m a rin e in s u ra n c e p o lic ie s , th e re s p o n d e n ts w e re in s u re d b y each o f th e a p p e lla n ts re s p e c tiv e ly fo r 50 p e r c e n t, o f 14,925 flo rin s a g a in s t th e o r d in a r y m a rin e p e rils a n d a g a in s t leakage b y th e fo llo w in g clause : “ T o p a y le aka ge fr o m a n y cause in excess o f 1 p e r c e n t, o n each in v o ic e , c o n v e rs io n o f k ilo g ra m s in to th e A m e ric a n g a llo n s h a ll be m a d e o n th e basis o f 3.25 k ilo g ra m s t o th e g a llo n .” A f t e r re c e iv in g th e tu r p e n tin e on b o a rd th e Cape T o w n M a r u le f t J a c k s o n v ille o n th e 2 5 th A u g . 1923. H e a v y w e a th e r was e xp e rie n c e d o n th e v o y a g e , a n d w h e n th e vessel was d is c h a rg e d a t R o tte rd a m a loss w it h in th e te rm s o f th e leakage clause was a s c e rta in e d o f 206.75 k ilo g ra m s o u t o f a t o t a l o f 16,597.75 k ilo g ra m s , t o re c o v e r w h ic h th e p re s e n t a c tio n h a d been b ro u g h t. T h e a p p e lla n ts c o n te n d e d t h a t th e loss, i f a n y , w as d u e t o th e in h e re n t v ic e o f th e b a rre ls o f tu r p e n tin e in t h a t th e sam e, b e in g a v o la tile o il, v o la tilis e d o r a lte r n a tiv e ly c o n tra c te d w it h o u t a n y in ju r y t o th e b a rre ls , a n d t h a t

“ le akage ” w it h in th e m e a n in g o f th e clause m e a n t a p h y s ic a l loss in t r a n s it b y a n escape o f th e liq u id . T h e y f u r t h e r c o n te n d e d t h a t th e po lic ie s o f in s u ra n c e , w h ic h fo rm e d p a r t o f th e c o n tra c t sued o n , c o n ta in e d a clause t h a t th e a p p e lla n ts w e re n o t t o be lia b le unless th e a c tio n was b r o u g h t w it h in one y e a r fr o m th e h a p p e n in g o f th e alleg ed loss, a n d th e a c tio n was n o t so b ro u g h t. T h e c e rtific a te c o n ta in e d no reference to th e lim it a t io n clause.

M a c k in n o n , J . h e ld t h a t th e re sp o n d e n ts w ere e n title d t o re c o v e r on th e g ro u n d s (1) t h a t le a k a g e in th e c e rtific a te m e a n t a n y loss o f w e ig h t o r b u lk d u r in g th e course o f th e vo ya g e , w h ic h e v e r m easure be ta k e n ; (2) t h a t th e loss was p ro v e d b y c re d ib le evide nce o f th e k in d c o n te m p la te d b y th e c e rtific a te ; a n d (3 ) t h a t th e a p p e lla n ts h a d fa ile d t o m a k e o u t t h a t th e c e rtific a te in c o rp o ra te d th e lim it a t io n clause fr o m th e p o lic y . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a l a ffirm e d th e le a rn e d ju d g e ’ s ju d g m e n t. T h e d e fe n d a n ts a p p e a le d .

W . A . J o w itt, K .C . a n d V a n den B erg f o r th e a p p e lla n ts .

S . L . P o rte r, K .C . a n d W . L e n n o x M c N a ir f o r th e re sp o n d e n ts.

T h e H o use to o k tim e f o r c o n s id e ra tio n . L o r d Buckmaster.—I h a v e h a d th e o p p o r­

t u n i t y o f re a d in g th e ju d g m e n t o f m y n o b le fr ie n d L o r d D u n e d in w h ic h he has c o m m itte d t o w r it in g a n d w it h i t I agree.

L o r d Dunedin.— O n th e 2 7 th J u l y 1923, th e agents in R o tte rd a m fo r a n A m e ric a n c o m p a n y , th e C o lu m b ia N a v a l S tores C o m p a n y , s o ld b y cab le a u t h o r ity t o M essrs. D e M o n c h y , th e re s p o n d e n ts in th is ap p e a l, 100 b a rre ls o f s p ir its o f tu r p e n tin e a t a c e rta in p ric e . T h e c o n tra c t w as a c .i.f. c o n tra c t ; i t need n o t be q u o te d in f u ll. I t c o n ta in e d (in te r a lia ) th e fo llo w in g clauses : u n d e r th e h e a d in g

“ R e d u c tio n o f f r e ig h t ” i t p ro v id e d fo r th e r a te o f exchange be tw e e n p o u n d s s te rlin g , d o lla rs , g ild e rs , a n d re ic h s m a rk s , a n d th e n fo llo w s “ R e d u c tio n o f w e ig h t,” A m e ric a n n e t w e ig h t t o be re d u ce d b y 1 g a llo n = 3.25 k ilo s . I t also c o n ta in e d th e fo llo w in g clause :—

“ In s u ra n c e d o c u m e n ts t o in c lu d e r is k o f leakage in excess o f 1 p e r c e n t, u p o n th e basis o f th e ab o ve re d u c tio n o f w e ig h t.”

T h e tu r p e n tin e was sh ip p e d o n th e 2 5 th A u g . 1923, a t J a c k s o n v ille , F lo r id a , o n b o a rd th e Cape 'Town M a r u . T h e s h ip re m a in e d on th e F lo r id a coast t i l l th e 1 9 th S ep t. I t th e n le f t fo r L o n d o n , e n c o u n te rin g some h e a v y w e a th e r o n th e passage. I t le f t L o n d o n o n th e 9 th O c t.

a n d w e n t t o R o tte rd a m , w h e re i t d isch a rg e d th e tu r p e n tin e o n th e 2 2 n d a n d 2 3 rd O c t. A n in v o ic e a n d b i l l o f la d in g w e re sen t t o th e re sp o n d e n ts in o r d in a r y fo r m . T h e re was also sen t to th e m a d o c u m e n t e n title d c e rtific a te o f in s u ra n c e . Cases w e re c ite d b y le a rn e d counsel w h ic h sho w t h a t i t has been m o re th a n once de cid ed in th e c o u rts o f th is c o u n tr y t h a t such a c e rtific a te o f in s u ra n c e is n o t a g o o d te n d e r o f a n in s u ra n c e p o lic y u n d e r a c .i.f.

c o n tra c t. N o q u e s tio n , h o w e v e r, as t o t h a t was ra is e d b y th e re sp o n d e n ts. T h e y w e re c o n te n t t o h o ld t h a t th e d o c u m e n t as i t s tan ds w as a g o o d fu lf ilm e n t o f th e in s u ra n c e p a r t o f t h e ir c .i.f. c o n tra c t. I s h a ll s h o r tly r e v e r t to th e d o c u m e n t, o n th e c o n s tru c tio n o f w h ic h th e p re s e n t case depends, b u t in th e m e a n tim e I c o n tin u e th e n a r r a tiv e o f fa c ts .

T h e b a rre ls o f tu r p e n tin e o n b e in g d isch a rg e d h a d th e ir c o n te n ts w e ig h e d , in th e o r d in a r y m a n n e r in w h ic h such w e ig h in g is c o n d u c te d , a t R o tte rd a m b y a s w o rn w e ig h e r. H e fo u n d th e w e ig h t o f th e tu r p e n tin e t o be 16,225 k ilo s . N o w th e in ta k e q u a n tity h a d been ga ug ed a t J a c k s o n v ille as 5,107 g a llo n s . C o n v e rtin g th is a t th e c o n v e rs io n fig u re o f 1 g a llo n = 3.25 k ilo s , w e g e t 16,597.75 k ilo s . C o m p a rin g th is w it h th e o u t p u t q u a n t it y th e re is a d e fic ie n c y in th e o u t p u t o f 372.75 k ilo s . D e d u c tin g 1 p e r c e n t, on th e t o t a l w h ic h equals 166, th is leaves a d e fic ie n c y o f 206.75 k ilo s , a n d th e v a lu e o f t h a t is th e c la im m ad e in t h is a c tio n . I t o n ly a m o u n ts t o 171. in m o n e y ,