out of the written indorsement it-
self; the delivery of the Bill to
the indorsee, and the intention
with which that delivery was made
and accepted, as evinced by the
words, either spoken or written,
by the parties, and the circum-
stances, such as the usage of the
place, and the course of dealing
between the parties under which
the delivery takes place.
The Respondent acted as agent
in Malta, for the Appellant; for
the purpose of buying and remit-
ting to the Appellant in England,
Bills on England, on account of
money received by the Respondent
in Malta. In the course of his
agency the Respondent purchased
Bills in Malta and indorsed them
to the Appellant, without any re-
servation in the indorsement as to
his liability.

Held (affirming the judgment of the
Courts at Malta), that, in the ab-
sence of special circumstances,
showing that any liability was
intended, by the general mercan-
tile law, which must be taken to
be in force in Malta, the Re-
spondent was not liable to the
Appellant, upon the Bills being
dishonoured. [Castrique v. Butti-
gieg]

94

2. Action by agent in Malta, against
his principal, to recover the amount
of damages sustained by him, in a
suit brought in Genoa, upon a
breach of contract which he had
defended on behalf of his prin-
cipal, upon appeal upheld, and

VOL. X.

damages decreed against the prin-
cipal.

In order to entitle an agent to recover
from his principal, under such cir-
cumstances, he must show-
First, that the loss arose from the
fact of his agency.

Secondly, that he was acting within
the scope of his authority. And
Thirdly, that the blame was not at-
tributable to any fault or laches on
his part.

Although an agent exceed the scope
of his authority, yet, if the prin-
cipal waive or ratify the excess,
the act of the agent is binding on
the principal. [Frixione v. Tag-
liaferro]

175

A ship and cargo taken as prize
having been condemned by the
Admiralty Court, was sold under
a decree of that Court, pursuant
to the Prize Act, 17th & 18th
Vict., c. 18, sect. 26. The decree
was reversed by the appellate
Court, and simple restitution de-
creed.

Held, That as the Captors were boná
fide in possession during litigation,
they were entitled to the rights,
allowances, and incidents attach-
ing to such possession, and that
the Claimants were only, upon
simple restitution, entitled to the
nett proceeds of the sale, after de-
ducting from the gross proceeds
the Marshal's charges, consisting
of (1) expenses of sale, (2) reason-
able expenses for the care and
custody of the property pending
adjudication, and (3) for pilotage,
lights, and other dues, incurred
in bringing the ship to England.
Practice in former wars in such cases.
[Northcote v. Douglas]

See "BLOCKADE," 1.

"FURTHER PROOF."

73

RIVER.
The East India Company, as repre-
senting the Indian Government,
have a freehold in the bed of
navigable rivers in India, and to
the land between high and low-
water mark. [Doe dem. Seebkristo
v. The East India Company] 140

SEPARATE APPEALS.
By two sets of Appellants having the
same interest.
See “COSTS,” 8.

1.

SHIP AND SHIPPING.

Two ships were lying-to; A. with
her head towards the north, and B.
to the south, going slowly with the
tide, when a collision took place
between them. Both ships being
held equally to blame, A. in neg-
lecting to port her helm in time;
and B. in not throwing back her
headyards to avoid the collision.
The Admiralty Court decreed the
damages to be equally divided be-
tween them.

Such decree reversed upon appeal ;

the Judicial Committee holding,
that the rule of the Admiralty
Court, that in case of mutual
blame the damage was to be di-
vided, was superseded by Statute,
17th & 18th Vict., c. 104, sec. 298,
and that the penalty of a party
neglecting the rules enjoined by

section 296 of that Statute, was
to prevent the owner of one vessel
recovering damages from the other
vessel, although also in fault.
Held also, that the above sections,

162

296 and 298, were not confined to
vessels strictly proceeding on their
several voyages, but were equally
applicable to vessels lying-to.
[Lawson v. Carr]
2. A schooner with the wind free, sail-
ing from south-west, and steering
north, meeting with a barque on
the starboard tack, close-hauled,
is bound by the rule of the sea to
give way, and go astern.
Held, in such circumstances (re-
versing the decree of the Admi-
ralty Court), that the barque was
right in keeping her course, as it
was to be presumed that the
schooner would give way to her,
and that the schooner, not having
seen the barque till too late, and
then ported her helm, which led
to the collision, was alone to
blame. [Thompson v. From] 461
3. A vessel at anchor in Dover Roads,

in a fair way, about a mile from
the shore, opposite the harbour,
waiting the ebb tide, on a dark
night, where vessels were accus-
tomed to anchor, having a bright
red light burning, which was placed
on a spar under the boom of the
foresail, about four feet on the
starboard side of the mast, and
about twenty feet above the bul-
warks, was run down by a steamer.
Held that the Statute, 17th & 18th

Vict., c. 104, sec. 298, did not

apply, as the light was in a posi-
tion as visible to the steamer as if
it had been hoisted at the mast-
head; and that as there was no
such departure from the Admi-
ralty Regulations as to cause the
collision, it did not prevent the
owners of the vessel from re-
covering from the steamer for the
loss.

Construction of Statutes, 14th & 15th
Vict., c. 79, sec. 26; 17th & 18th
Vict., c. 104, sec. 298; and 17th &
18th Vict., c. 120. [Churchward
v. Palmer]

See "PILOT."

SLAVE TRADE.

472

A vessel employed on the coast of
Africa, in the palm oil trade, be-
longing to British owners resident
in England, was seized by a British
cruiser, on the ground of having
false papers on board, and being
otherwise fitted up for the purposes
of the Slave trade. The Com-
mander sent the captured vessel
with a prize crew to Saint Helena
for condemnation. The master,
mate, and crew, being compelled
by the Captors to go on board the
cruiser, did not accompany the
vessel to Saint Helena. The Vice-
Admiralty Court at Saint Helena
condemned the vessel as being
engaged in the Slave trade, con-
trary to the Statute, 2nd & 3rd
Vict., c. 73. The proceedings in
that Court were ex-parte, no one
being present to represent the
owners, who were not informed of

First.

That the seizure was unwar-
ranted, there being no probable
grounds to justify a careful Com-
mander making such a seizure;
and the vessel decreed to be re-
stored, with costs and damages.
Second. That the proceedings re-
lating to the condemnation were
wholly irregular, as the Captor was
bound by the Admiralty Instruc-
tions (Sect. i., Art. 21) to have sent
the chief mate, supercargo, or
boatswain, with the captured vessel,
for the purpose of giving evidence;
and that as the Captor took them
away and prevented them giving
evidence, the condemnation was in
consequence wrong. [Harrison v.
The Queen] -

STATUTES.

(Construction of.)

ADMIRALTY REGULATIONS.

201

14th & 15th Vict., c. 77 ; 17th & 18th
Vict., c. 104 and 120.

See "SHIP AND SHIPPING," 1, 3.

COSTS.

18th & 19th Vict., sec. 2.

See "COSTS," 5.

DOMICILE.

1 Vict., c. 26.

See" DOMICILE."

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.

17th & 18th Vict., c. 104, sec. 296-8.

See "SHIP AND SHIPPING," 1, 3.

PILOTS.

6th Geo. IV., c. 125, sec. 55, and
17th & 18th Vict., c. 104, sec. 388.
See "PILOT."

PATENT.

5th & 6th Will. IV., c. 83, and 15th
& 16th Vict., c. 83, sec. 40.

See "PATENT."

PRIZE OF WAR.

17th & 18th Vict., c. 18, sec. 26.
See "RESTITUTION."

SLAVE TRADE.

2nd & 3rd Vict., c. 73.
See" SLAVE TRADE."

UNCERTAINTY

Of description of lands in Crown

grants.

See "CROWN GRANTS."

WAGER CONTRACT.

A wager contract in India (before the

passing of the Legislative Act,
No. 21, of 1848) upon the average
price opium would fetch at a future
Government sale, held legal, and
an action thereon maintained.
The Plaintiff and Defendants, by

contracts in writing, wagered as to
the average price to be obtained
for opium" of the 30th of Novem-
ber," "of the first lelaum, or public
Government sale of opium." At
the time when these contracts were
entered into, the first Government
sale had been advertised for the
"30th of November, 1846." The
sale on that day was prevented by
a combination of opium speculators
interested in similar contracts. The
Government sale was again adver-
tised, and took place on the 7th of
December following, when opium of
the quantity and description adver-
tised for sale on the "30th No-
vember" was sold. Held: First,
that the date mentioned in the
contracts, the "30th of November,"
was a mere description of the pe-
riod when the first public Govern-
ment sale of opium usually took
place, and formed no part of the
risk contemplated by the wagers,
the subject of the contracts, and
was immaterial; and, secondly,
that according to the true construc-
tion of the contracts, the first ac-
tual public Government sale of
opium which took place next after
the date of the contracts satisfied
the terms of the contracts; and
upon a certain average being real-
ized thereon, the event on which
the Plaintiff had wagered was de-
termined in his favour, and he was
entitled to recover the differences
under the averages. [Rughoonauth
Sahoi Chotayloll v. Manickchund]

124

WILL.

1. A Testator, against whom a Com-
mission of lunacy was subsisting,
Imade a Will and Codicil, the in-
structions for which were rational,
and the testamentary papers pro-
perly executed. Such instruments
pronounced against, the evidence
showing that the deceased had been
instructed to conceal the continued
existence of the delusions he still
entertained, and that he acted un-
der restraint; the evidence of his
partial or perfect recovery at the
time of giving instructions and
execution being inconclusive and
unsatisfactory. [Prinsep and The
East India Company v.Dyce Sombre]

232

2. The forms and solemnities of a
Will are governed by the law
of the domicile of the Testator.

[Bremer v. Freeman] - 306
3. The difference, in a question of
fluctuating capacity and partial re-
covery, between unsoundness of
mind partaking of the nature of
mental derangement, manifesting
itself in insane delusions; from
unsoundness of mind caused by
fever, which produces delirium, ob-

served upon.

In a case where from bodily indispo-

sition the Testator's mind fluc-
tuated, and at times produced an
excitement which while it lasted
amounted to unsoundness of mind,
a Will and Codicil made in accord-
ance with the intentions of the
deceased expressed in a former