other work, he cannot depart before such work is finished-otherwise an action for damages can be brought against him, or he may be indicted for the offence, and damages may be recovered by the master of each workman, against any one who may entice him to leave his work unfinished, or employ him after notice of his being employed by another; for, per lord Kenyon, he that contracts with another to do certain work for him, is the servant of that other till the work is finished, and no other person can employ such servant to the prejudice of the first master, the very act of giving him employment, is affording him means of keeping him out of his former service. 6 T. R. 221.

MERCHANT, is a person who buys and sells commodities in the gross, or who traffics commercially by exporting and importing for his own account or on commission.

Strict probity and good faith is absolutely necessary to all merchants, it forms the basis of mercantile character, and it is no improper tribute paid to the commercial part of this country to say, that they have carried none of their other qualities to a higher or more honorable degree. In this land of freedom, commerce is not shackled as in other parts. All merchants, except enemies, may come with their goods and merchandise, and depart at their pleasure, and be friendly entertained. *If goods be clandestinely shipped on board a vessel bound to a foreign port, which are prohibited from being exported into that country, and the ship seized in consequence thereof, and the master compelled to pay a sum of money for its release; it was held an action can be maintained against the shippers for recovery of the money paid by the master. 3 John. Rep. 105.

NECESSITY. The law charges no man with default where the act is compulsory and not voluntary, and where there is not a consent and election; for although by statute every merchant setting his merchandise on land, without satisfying the customs, or agreeing for it, shall forfeit his merchandise; yet if it so happens, that by a tempest, merchandise is thrown overboard, whereby the merchant agrees to pay the custom, by estimation, which is erroneous, yet the over quantity is not forfeited; the necessity of the case dispenses with the direct letter of the statute law.

If in danger of tempest, those who are in a ship throw overboard other men's goods, they are not answerable; also if a fire happens in a street, a person may justify pulling down the wall or house of another to prevent the fire from spreading. Compulsion and inevitable necessity are considered by the learned

Blackstone, among those causes from whence arises a defect of will, and which, therefore, an action is not to be considered as criminal which would otherwise be so.

Therefore if a man, through fear of death, is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act, these, though accompanied with all legal solemnities, may afterwards be avoided as done by necessity. If a man is under imprisonment, or illegally restrained of liberty, until he seals a bond or the like, he may allege this imprisonment, and avoid the extorted bond or deeds, but if a man be lawfully imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or on any other fair account, seals a bond or deed, in the presence of an attorney, this is not of necessity, and he is not at liberty to avoid it. 2 Inst. 83.

NEUTRALITY. A state not engaged in alliance with either of the belligerant powers, is not obliged to take part in a war; but whilst it preserves a strict neutrality, has a right to insist on being treated as neutral by the powers of war. To observe an entire neutrality, a state must abstain from all participation whatever, in warlike expeditions.— It must grant or refuse nothing to one of the belligerant powers which may be useful or necessary to suck power prosecuting the war, without granting or refusing it to the opposite party; it must, in short, not favor one party more than another. Hostilities cannot be carried on in the territory or parts of the sea, under the dominion of a neutral power, without a violation of the law of nations. But the booty which a captor brings or sends into a neutral territory cannot on thatfaccount be claimed by the original proprietor. The captor may even sell such booty in a neutral territory, if it has not been otherwise settled by treaty.

One of the most important articles to be considered in treating of the laws of neutrality is the commerce between neutral and belligerant nations.

A neutral nation may permit its subjects to carry all sorts of merchandise, including arms and ammunition, to the powers at war, or to any of them with which this commerce may be carried on to the greatest advantage. So long as the sovereign power in a neutral nation does not interfere by prohibiting commerce with either or all of the powers at war, so long, it would seem, the nation does not transgress the laws of neutrality. However, a power at war have a right to hinder its enemy from reinforcing itself by the reception of warlike stores, necessity may authorize it to prevent merchandise of this kind from

being conveyed to the enemy by a neutral power; but in all such cases the captor ought to be satisfied with sequestering such merchandise till the end of the war, or if he apply them to his own use, in justice he ought to pay the full value to the neutral proprietor. But every sovereign engaged in war may prohibit all commerce whatever with the enemy, in its own territory and maritime dominion, in the places, provinces, &c. taken from the enemy, and in such places as he is able to keep blockaded so as to prevent the entrance of any foreigner. In all these cases he may attach the penalty of a confiscation or other punishment on those who carry on such prohibited commerce. But no power has regularly a right to confiscate the goods of an enemy found in a neutral vessel, navigating in a free or neutral sea, nor neutral goods found in a neutral vessel of an enemy, provided, in both cases, these goods be not warlike stores. A belligerant power has a right even on a free sea to bring a neutral vessel to, and insist on proof of her neutrality. Garrills v. Kinsington, 8 Term Rep. 230. And the case of the Maria, Robinson, Adm. Rep. 11th June, 1799.

In the case of a dispute concerning the lawfulness of a prize made on a free sea, if the two nations do not settle it in an amicable manner, judges of both nations are to determine it by a judicial decision.

It is now generally understood that a neutral power ought not to transport to either of the belligerant powers, merchandise unequivocally intended for warlike purposes, and what are commonly called contraband of war; and in order to ascertain this with the greater precisions, maritime powers, at the beginning of a war, generally advertise the neutral powers, that they shall look on certain specific articles as contraband.

A nation which authorizes contraband commerce is considered to have violated its neutrality,and the belligerant power against which such commerce operates, confiscates such contraband merchandise, and sometimes also the vessel; on this point where there are no treaties, the conduct of the belligerant powers is extremly various

As to merchandise not contraband, it is generally allowed, that neutral powers have a right to transport them to the enemy, except into places blockaded, with which all commerce is prohibited. But neutral merchants' vessels ought, when at sea, to submit to the customary examination, which has been almost uniformly confirmed by treaties of commerce between the different powers.

When a prize has been made, the captor cannot appropriate its own

use, till it has been condemned as lawful prize in a court of admiralty. Every power has a right to institute courts of admiralty, with full pow er to determine on the legality of all prizes made by its subjects. It is not the law of the country where the court is held, but existing treaties and the universal law of nations, that ought to be the basis on which all decisions of this sort are founded.

It was fomerly a rule to return to the proprietors the neutral goods taken on board an enemy's vessel, and to confiscate the goods of an enemy found on board a neutral vessel. But at present, regard is had to the property of the vessel and not the goods; so that a neutral vessel saves the goods of an enemy, and neutral goods found on board of an enemy are confiscated.

NEUTRAL SHIPS, are ships belonging to states, which, with respect to belligerant powers, remain neutral; which, by the law of nations are not to assist either party with warlike stores, and in certain cases as, where a state is in a blockade with provisions.

Warlike stores are arms, balls, powder, and other ammunition, horses and furniture, pitch, tar, sails, hemp, cordage, masts, yards, and all other necessaries for building and equipment of ships. What shall not be deemed contraband is generally specified in the treaties between particular states.

A neutral ship refusing to submit to search, or to produce her papers, will be subject according to the law of nations to condemnation.— See Insurance, Neutrality.

PAYMENT, is the consideration or purchase money for goods, and may be made by the buyer giving to the seller the price agreed upon, either by bill, or note, or by money. Where a day certain is appointed for payment, the party bound shall be allowed till the last moment of the day to pay it in, if it be an inland bill. 4 T. R. 173.

Accepting a bill, or giving a promissory note, is good evidence of an antecedent debt. Kearslake v. Morgan, 5 T. R. 513, and Richardson v. Richman, cited ibid.

If these are not duly paid, they are considered as a nullity; but no action can be maintained on the original demand until they have become payable.

A. sold goods to B. for which the latter was to pay by a bill at three months; B. gave A. a check on his bankers, who were also the bankers of A., requiring them to pay A. on demand, in a bill at three months; A. paid the check into the bankers, and took no bill from them, but the amount was transferred in the banker's books from B's

account to A's, with the knowledge of both. The bankers failed before the check became due; and it was held, that A. could not recover the value of the goods against B. Bolton v. Richard, 6 T. R. 136.

If a debtor is directed by his creditor to remit bills by the post, and the bills are lost, the creditor must sustain the loss. Warwick v. Noakes, C. T. 31 Geo. III. But in such case the person remitting should deliver the letter at the post-office, and not to a bell-man.Hawkins v. Rust, S. T. p. 33. Geo. III.

The payment of the money shall be directed by him who pays it, and not by the receiver, but if the payer does not apply the payment, the receiver may, but he must not apply it to an uncertain demand, as to a debt from a testator. Strange, 1194.

A bill drawn on A. to pay money for value received, is a good discharge of a debt, though the bill be not paid, unless the creditor return the bill in due time. Show. 155.

By stat. 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9, s. 7, if any person doth accept any bills of exchange described in this act, in satisfaction of any former debt, or sum of money formerly due, the same shall be accounted and esteemed a full and complete payment of such debt, if such person accepting of any such bill for his debt, doth not take his due course to obtain payment thereof, by endeavoring to get the same accepted and paid, and make his protest either for non-acceptance or non-payment thereof. See Bills of Exchange.

PILOT, is a person taken on board at a particular place for the purpose of conducting a ship through a river, road or channel, or from or to a port. It is the duty of a master engaged in foreign trade to put his ship under the charge of a pilot, both in his outward and homeward voyage, within the limits of such establishments, the charges of which is regulated by different places, by usage or by statute, and generally increases in proportion of the depth of water, which the vessel draws; although the master is not liable for any injury done to another vessel by the fault or negligence of the pilot, and has not any command of the ship till she is safe in harbor. 1'Johns. Rep. 395.

Yet the owners are liable for the acts of the pilot, and they are left to recover the amount against him—even if the pilot be appointed by public authority. Jackson v. Winchester, 4 Dall. Rep. 467.

In case of damages done to one ship by another, or to its cargo, without the fault of the persons belonging to either ship, the same is to be equally borne by the owners of the two ships, and such accidents is to be considered as the perils of the seas.