United States, this crime is productive of the most fatal consequences.), It may also be committed in the name of a person who never had existence, and it may be committed of an instrument, although such an instrument, as the one forged, does not exist either in law or fact.

Endorsing a real bill of exchange in a fictitious name is forgery, though the use of the fictitious name was not essential to the negotiation. Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T. R. 176.

A forged bank note (although the word pound is omitted in the body of it,) is a counterfeit note for the payment of money.

Altering an entry of money received, made by a cashier of a bank, in the bank book of a person keeping money there, by prefixing a figure to increase the amount of the sum received, is forging a receipt

for money.

A receipt endorsed on a bill of exchange in a fictitious name is a forgery, although such name does not purport to be the name of any particular person.

If a person who has for many years been known by a name which was not his own, and afterwards assumes his real name, and in that name draws a bill of exchange, he will not be guilty of forgery, although such bill were drawn for fraudulent purposes.

FREIGHT is the money paid for the carriage of goods by sea, or it is sometimes taken for the cargo or burthen of the ship. The freight is most frequently determined for the whole voyage, without respect to time; in the former case it is either fixed at a certain sum for the whole cargo, or so much per ton, barrel, bulk, or other weight or measure, or so much per cent. on the value of the cargo. The burthen of the ship is generally mentioned in the contract. If a certain sum be agreed on for the freight of the ship, it must be paid, although the ship measured should prove less, unless the burthen be warranted. If the ship be freighted to transport cattle at so much per head, and some of them die on the passage, freight is only due for such as are delivered alive; if for lading them, it is due for all put on board.

When a whole ship is freighted, if the master suffer any other goods besides those of the freight to be put on board, he is liable to damages.

If the voyage be completed according to the agreement, without any accident, the master has a right to demand the freight before the delivery of the goods; but if such delivery is prevented by negligence, or accident, the parties will be reciprocally responsible in the following

manner.

If the merchant should not load the ship within the time agreed on, the master may engage with another and recover damages.

If the merchant recall the ship after she is laden and sailed, he must pay the whole freight; but if he unload the ship before she actually sailed, he will in such case only be responsible for damages.

If the merchant load goods which are not lawful to export, and the ship be prevented from proceeding on that account, he must nevertheless pay the freight and also damages.

If the master be not ready to proceed on the voyage at the time stipulated, the merchant may load the whole or part of the cargo on board another ship, and recover damages, but any real casualties will release the master from all damages.

If an embargo be laid on the ship before she sails, the charterparty is dissolved, and the merchant pays the expense of loading and unloading; but if the embargo be only for a short limited time, the voyage shall be performed when it cxpires; and neither party is liable to damages.

If the master sails to any other port than that agreed on, without necessity, he must sail to the port agreed on at his own expense, and he is liable for any damage in consequence thereof.

If a ship be taken by an enemy, and re-taken or ransomed, the charter-party continues in force.

If the master transfer the goods from his own ship to another, without necessity and they perish, he is responsible for their true value, and all charges; but if his own ship be in imminent danger, the goods may be put on board of another ship at the risk of the owner.

If a ship be freighted out and home, and a sum agreed. on for the whole voyage, nothing becomes due until the return of such ship.

If a certain sum be specified for the homeward voyage, it is due, although the correspondent abroad should have no goods to send home.

If a merchant hires a vessel for a cargo to a designated port, and obtain none, he is liable to pay the stipulated sum agreed on. Giles v. brig Cynthia, 1 Peters Ad. R. 203, 207.

If freight be paid in advance for goods to be transported and delivered, and the goods not carried by reason of any event not imputable to the shipper, the advance must be refunded, but if the contract be for the loading of the goods on board, the freight is not to be refunded in the event of the goods not being transported, but if a ship commences her voyage and is lost, the advance cannot be recovered. Watson v. Duykink, 3 John, R. 335.

The same if freight or passage money be advanced, and the party is guilty of delay or neglect, though he has not received the benefit of his contract, he is not entitled to a return of the advance.

If a master in consideration of freight at a certain rate per ton for the goods, agrees to load a complete cargo, and proceed therewith to the port of delivery, he will be liable to pay damages if he loads a short cargo only, and the neglect to load a complete cargo is not excused by a bona fide conduct in quitting the port of loading under a well grounded apprehension of a hostile embargo and seizure.

When a ship arrives at the port of her destination, but her cargo was prohibited from entry, freight must be paid for the outward voyage.

If a ship by reason of the perils of the sea be compelled after the commencement of her voyage to return to the port of lading, and the merchant there receives his goods, no freight is due. Griswold v. New York Insurance company, 1 John. Rep. 205, § c. 3 John Rep.

321.

If a freighter receives his goods, whether spoiled or otherwise, the master is entitled to his freight. As to the right of the merchant to abandon his goods on their arrival at the place of destination, and by so doing discharge himself from the freight, different opinions have prevailed, but it appears to be now settled, that freight is payable notwithstanding the goods are so much damaged, that their value fell short of its amount, but it is highly necessary to distinguish the cause from which the deterioration may have proceeded. If from the fault of the master or mariners, the merchant is entitled to a compensation, and can recover against the owners or master, provided he has not received the goods, but if the loss proceeds naturally from the commodity, or from confinement or closeness of the ship, the merchant must bear the loss and pay the freight. Fruit, corn, salt and victuals cannot be abandoned, but goods contained in casks, as wine, oil, molasses, sugar and others of the like sort, if leaked to such an extent by perils of the seas that the casks are empty or nearly empty, the merchant may abandon them for the freight before they are landed, provided there has been no fault in the storage, the loss shall be an average against the insurers. Frith v. Baker, 2 John Rep. 227.

If a ship is let to freight and the owner to receive in lieu of freight a certain share of the profits of the cargo, deducting all charges, except insurance and premium of dollars, if the outward cargo consisted of the same, and during the voyage the cargo is lost by perils of the seas, the losses are to be deducted out of the profits, and sustained

equally by the owner and freighter. Putnam v. Wood. 3 Mass. Rep. 481.

It has been determined, that when goods were carried to the port of destination, and damaged so as to be of no value to the owner, he cannot abandon his goods for the freight, but that the merchant is bound to pay the freight; provided the master has conducted himself with fidelity and vigilance in the course of the voyage. Griswold v. NewYork Insurance Co. 3 John. Rep. 321.

If a ship and freight have been separately insured and abandoned to the respective underwriters, the underwriters are entitled to the freight, as an incident to the property of the ship. Sharp v. Gladstone, 7 East. Rep. 24.

Ships chartered for a particular voyage, if sold during the voyage, the freighter, and not the vendee, has a right to receive the freight.Spledt v. Bowles, 10 East, Rep. 279. B

If a ship be chartered for 12 months, at a stipulated sum per month, payable at different periods, the freight being reserved at so much per month, was earned and payable at the end of each month, although the times of payment was stipulated at different periods. Havelock v. Geddes, 10 East, Rep. 555.

If a ship is captured and subsequently released, though the ship be hired by the week or month, the owner is entitled to recover freight for the time of the detention as well as the seamen for wages. Beale v. Thompson, 4 East. Rep. 540.

In case of capture and condemnation of the cargo, it is not necessary to take the freight at the price fixed in the charter party. If the price of freight has been raised by the events of war, but if no such circumstance exists, the charter party is the rule of valuation, the captor is the place of the owners, and takes with that specific lien upon it. The Dwelling Reget. 5 Rob. Ad. Rep. 77.

When an owner charters a vessel, or advertises her for freight, it is requisite that the ship be in a condition to transport her cargo in safety, and to keep her in that condition, unavoidable accidents excepted, for if the goods are lost by reason of any defect in the ship, whether hid or visible, known or unknown, the owners are answerable to the freighters. The same principle governs charter parties, policies of insurance, and contracts of affreightment. Putnam v. Wood, 3 Mass. Rep. 481.

A ship must not only be seaworthy, but must be properly equipped with a competent crew for the voyage. Silva v. Low, 1 John. Rep. Cas. 184.

The best rule to ascertain the freight earned pro rate, is to ascertain what proportion of the voyage has been performed, not when the ship encountered the peril, and was interrupted in her course, but when the goods arrived at the intermediate port, because that is the extent of the voyage, as it respects the interest of the shipper. Marine Insurance Co. v. Lenox, 2 John. Rep. 326. Robertson v. Marine Ins. Co. 2

John. Rep. 233.

If a captured ship be lost by the negligence of the prize master, when the ship is innocently employed, and a part of the cargo only saved, which is sufficient to pay the freight, not only the value of the ship, but also the full freight is recoverable against the captors personally. 3 R. Adm. R. 129.

Where a ship is condemned, and the cargo acquitted as neutral property, and is afterwards carried by its captors to its port of destination, they are entitled to freight. 4 Rob. Adm. R. 278.

If part of the goods be thrown overboard, or taken by the enemy, the part delivered pays freight.

Where a ship was chartered to a foreign port and back for an entire sum, which, after delivering her cargo, was captured with her return cargo, and carried into port and libelled, when she returned to her port of destination without her cargo, which was afterwards restored, the contract being entire, freight cannot be recovered on the charter party, the ship not having delivered her return cargo, which was required by the agreement between the parties. Barker v. Chevoit, 2 Johns. Rep. 352.

If a cargo of a captured vessel be sold in the port of the capturing power, no freight is due to the captors. 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 269.

When a ship is chartered for a specific sum for the voyage, and part of the cargo be lost by the perils of the seas, and part conveyed to the place of destination, there can be no apportionment of the freight under the charter party.

Mr. Justice Livingston said with great propriety, if the agreement contravance no law of the State, whereof the parties are subject, and where it is made, that alone should be a guide in ascertaining their respective rights, the regulation of freight is as much an affair of municipal interference and of private contract as any other. There is no such thing as a law of nations on the subject; for every power legislates on this, as well as other matters, as it thinks best. Post v. Robertson, 1 John. Rep. 24.