between the plaintiff and the defendant, who contracted to deliver three hampers of silk-packed in three dozen hampers, to imitate bottled porter, (laughter)—for which he was to receive £7 upon each. The usual charge for the conveyance of such a package to New York would not be more than from 5s. to 10s.; while the ad valorem duty upon the silk in New York, if openly landed, would be considerably more than £7 each. On the 11th November, 1853, one hamper, containing silk goods to the value of £188 0s. 6d., was addressed to Devine for the purpose of his handing it over to the defendant for transit to New York, as per contract; on the 25th November a second hamper of silk goods, of the value of £127 odd, was similarly sent; and on the 17th December of the same year, a third hamper was dispatched from Manchester, under like circumstances, containing silk goods worth £152 16s. 7d. For each of these hampers the defendant gave a receipt. It turned out, however, that two of these hampers had never reached their destination, while the third came to hand with half its original contents abstracted. This action was therefore brought to recover the amount of plaintiff's loss, the result of the defendant's neglect and non-fulfillment of contract. The plaintiff was examined, and his evidence corroborated the foregoing. Mr. James cross-examined the plaintiff at great length, and elicited that he had been in the habit of smuggling silks to America during the last five or six years, through Devine and the defendant. Devine was what was called a "runner," in the same employ as the defendant, and received £1 upon hampers for his trouble. The goods were generally forwarded in the boxes of emigrants, sometimes by the mates of sailing vessels and steamers. Plaintiff had not, upon the whole, been the gainer by these smuggling transactions. It was something like horse-racing, for he had been taken in; so it was not, after all, a very profitable business-certainly not in the transactions in question. The loss of the hampers had been accounted for by a statement to the effect that they had been thrown overboard in the river Hudson, to avoid their seizure. By Mr. Atherton-I have not sent more than thirty parcels to be smuggled into New York during the past six years, but sent out silk goods in the regular way to the extent of some £500 monthly.

John Devine said he had known the defendant some years, and had been engaged in the same office with him. Witness got 10s. per week and commission for obtaining passengers. Recollected the plaintiff calling in November, 1853, and stating that he wanted to ship some goods through Messrs. Grimshaw for New York. Witness told the defendant this, when he (defendant) replied that if the plaintiff would send the goods safe to Liverpool, he would forward them right, enough to New York. According to agreement, plaintiff, defendant, and witness met in the evening, first at the office, after the clerks had left, whence they adjourned to a hotel. An agreement was there entered into by the defendant to deliver "three dozen hampers" of silk at the plaintiff's warehouse in New York, free of duty, at £7 each, no money to be paid until plaintiff should hear of the, safe arrival of the property. The defendant also stipulated that the hampers should not be addressed to him, but to witness, which was done, the three hampers in question received, and handed over to the defendant, who gave a receipt for each. In cross-examination by Mr. James, the witness said he had sent away a few boxes for the defendant, who paid him ten shillings a box; he had smuggled nothing, and had not the slightest knowledge that the boxes contained contraband goods. If he had known the fact, and was paid for it, he would send off boxes of smuggled goods. Perhaps he might have known that the thirty boxes and hampers he had sent off contained smuggled goods, but he did not know what. Witness also kept a boarding-house. The police had not very lately been there looking after any person. By Mr. Atherton-Witness had been left a considerable sum of money lately, and was no longer a "runner," having left Messrs. Grimshaw's employ. After some further corroborative evidence, Mr. Atherton applied for permission to amend the declaration. Mr. James objected. His lordship said that he must object; and observed that he should not be a party to assist a person who had been defrauding the American revenue. The way would be to withdraw a juryman, which was done, and the plaintiff was non-suited.

TIMBER MERCHANTS-ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GOODS SUPPLIED.

Fazakerley vs. M'Knight and another.

In this action both parties are timber-merchants, and the plaintiff sought to recover £337 1s. 10d. from the defendants for goods supplied. In October, 1854, defendants were indebted to plaintiff the above_sum, and plaintiff drew a six months' bill on them, which was duly accepted. In January, 1855, the defendants (M Knight and Abbinett) made a composition with the creditors. A deed was drawn up under which their property was to be taken possession of by Mr. Abbinett, sen., the father of one of the defendants, who undertook to pay creditors to the amount of £10,000, ten shillings in the pound, upon their respective claims. For the defense it was contended that the plaintiff signed the deed of composition for the whole amount of his claim, and also that he had received goods to the amount of £142. 9s. 7d., which left a balance due to the plaintiff on his own claim of only £194 12s. 3d. It transpired that the amount of the plaintiff's debt was inserted after he had attached his signature to the deed of composition. His LORDSHIP thought this destroyed the validity of the deed. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of £200, the balance (with interest) which the defendants had pleaded was due between the parties.

SALVAGE STEAM-TUG NOT ENTITLED TO IT-OPPRESSIVE BARGAIN.

Decision in Admiralty, United States District Court-March 21, 1856. Before Judge Betts. Humphrey H. Crary et al. vs. the schooner El Dorado and her

cargo.

This libel was filed by the owners of the steam-tug C. P. Smith, to recover a salvage compensation for services rendered to the schooner. The libclants allege that on the 4th of February, 1856, the schooner, with a cargo of molasses on board, was lying at anchor in the North River, surrounded by heavy ice, by reason of which she was in great danger, and that those on board of her hailed the steam-tug and agreed to give $1,000 to be towed to a place of safety, which the tug succeeded in doing, suffering great damage herself in the service, and they claimed to recover the sum of $1,000. It was proved that the tug had been employed in towing other vessels which were near the El Dorado on that morning; that she was engaged in the service only a few hours; that the captain of the schooner was not on board, but the mate was, who, as the claimants alleged, could not make any binding agreement in the premises; but the customary compensation to tugs for aid of that description was $20 an hour, and no case was shown where more than $350 had been paid.

HELD BY THE COURT-That the recovery in this case cannot justly be placed on the basis of salvage services in their proper acceptation in law, nor on the footing of a specific bargain to pay $1,000 for the service.

That an essential branch of employment of steam-tugs in this port during the season of ice is moving vessels from place to place in the harbor. The use of this kind of craft has grown to be one of the necessities of commerce and navigation in this port, and the demand for their services has brought into use a numerous flotilla of tugs, which, like pilots, are always to be had to give vessels the advantage of their capacities, and the constancy of the demand guaranties in the average a remunerative reward for their services, which, however, has not yet been measured by an absolute scale of charges.

That so fundamental a change in the interterritorial and coast navigation since the foundation of the principles of maritime jurisprudence, renders the rules which define the relation of helping vessels to those relieved by them in distress, in a good degree inapplicable. The new relation of things no longer places the relieving vessel in the character of a volunteer, governed by impulse of humanity, leaving her own pursuits and devoting herself to the rescue of another in peril.

Steam-tugs stand on different grounds. They impose no unauthorized risks on their owners; they may have a reward whether needed or not, and will not necessarily lose it because the service undertaken by them fails; and what makes their aid essentially different from that of vessels coming casually upon one in distress, is that the steam-tugs pursue and solicit the employment.

That these considerations do not detract from their claim to an adequate recompense, or impair the importance of their services to the interests and safety of navigation, but show that they are no longer entitled to claim the character of salvors, in most instances where it might be readily attributed to vessels not devoted to this special pursuit, which has become a kind of public calling.

That the Courts possess ample authority to adapt the recompense for towage in extraordinary cases to their exigencies, as they may, when not restrained by positive law, augment the ordinary amount of pilotage.

But they will not allow their process to be used as a means of coercing the fulfillment of exorbitant and unconscionable bargains, however they may have been obtained.

That the demand of $1,000 in this case, whether placed upon the agreement of the mate of the schooner, or on the work of the services, is immeasurably beyond what ought to be awarded the tug.

Decree, therefore, that the libelants recover the sum of $350 with costs against the schooner, and that the libel against the cargo be dismissed with costs.

FREIGHT-RIght of brokER TO RECEIVE FREIGHT-MONEY-INSOLVENCY OF BROKER -REVOCATION OF HIS AUTHORITY-LIEN OF SHIPOWNER.

A case of great importance to merchants and ship-brokers, with reference to the authority of a broker, to whom a ship is consigned, to receive the freight-money, under bills of lading signed by the captain of the ship, and as to the lien of a shipowner on goods shipped on bills of lading under the character of the ship, has been decided in the Court of Common Pleas :

The action was brought to recover damages for the detention of a quantity of oil-cake, shipped at New York, for which the freight had been paid, and of which the plaintiffs held the bills of lading. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs, who are merchants in London, purchased, by their agents at New York, a quantity of oil-cake, which was shipped for them on board a vessel chartered for England, of which the defendant, a shipowner at North Shields, was the proprietor. The vessel was consigned to Cooper, Fitton & Co., brokers in London, and the terms agreed on with the captain were for a lump freight of 500 tons for £500, half of which was to be paid in cash on delivery of the cargo, and the rest by approved bills. It was found, however, that the vessel would only carry 460 tons, and a proportionate reduction in the amount of freight was therefore agreed upon between the charterer and the captain, and bills of lading were given. The plaintiffs having previously made arrangements for the necessary entries at the customhouse, and for payment of the freight, the vessel arrived on the 20th of December. The brokers, Cooper & Co., duly reported her arrival, and made out the freightnotes, and on Saturday, the 28th of December, received the £133 13s. 8d. for freight, from parties who represented the plaintiffs.

At this time the vessel was in the St. Katherine's Docks, and was partly unloaded into the plaintiffs' barges; but the captain, learning that the brokers had become insolvent, refused the pass necessary for the barges to leave the dock, and ultimately only allowed them to go upon receiving an indemnity from the plaintiffs. The chief question between the parties at the trial was, whether the plaintiffs, before they paid the freight to Cooper & Co., had received notice that the authority of these gentlemen to act as brokers had been revoked; and upon this point the evidence was very conflicting. The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

There had been another action in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which the jury found that there had been notice of the revocation of the brokers' authority.

The defendant, the shipowner, also contended, on the trial, that he had a lien on all the goods, whether shipped on bills of lading under the charterer or otherwise, and therefore that payment to the charterer was not payment so as to discharge the goods from the shipowner's lien. The judge at the trial directed the jury that, as they had found that the plaintiffs had not received notice that the authority of the brokers, Cooper & Co., had been revoked, they, the plaintiffs, were authorized pay the brokers' freight.

to

On a motion to the Court, complaining of this direction, the Court held the direction correct, inasmuch as it was not disputed that the vessel had been consigned to Cooper & Co., or that they, as the brokers, were by custom the parties to receive the freight, and that therefore it lay on the defendant to show (which he had failed to do to the satisfaction of the last jury) that due notice had been given to the plaintiffs that the brokers' authority to receive the freight had been revoked or countermanded.

Mr. Justice Cresswell denied that the shipowner had, as the defendant on the trial insisted, a lien on all the goods, whether shipped on bills of lading under the charterer or otherwise; saying, that " when a ship is chartered as a general ship, and the captain signs bills of lading for payment of a certain freight, the consignees cannot be made liable for anything beyond that freight." Odams vs. Avery, 19 Law Times Rep., 63.)

DISCHARGE OF SURETY.

A party having become surety for another for a debt, owing by the latter to a bank, and several transactions having subsequently passed, a warrant of attorney was given in the course of them, granting power to the bank to sue for the whole debt. At the request of A the bank took from B goods in execution sufficient to satisfy the debt; but B having become bankrupt, his assignees secured the goods, on the ground that the warrant of attorney was invalid, in consequence of the neglect of the bank to file it within the proper time, and this right of the assignees was confirmed on appeal, it being held that the bank's neglect discharged A from being a surety (Wilson vs. Alcock, 21 L. T. Rep., 204.)

REASSIGNMENT OF DEBTS.

A person to whom an equitable assignment had been made of a judgment debt, reassigned to another, together with the deeds. No notice of the latter assignment was given to the judgment creditor. At a subsequent period the original assignee executed a release to the debtor, who did not require the original bond of assignment to be either produced or given up. On appeal to the Court of Chancery from the decision of a lower court, it was held, in confirmation of the decision, that the release was valid, as against the person who had neglected to give notice of the assignment to him by the original assignee. (Stocks vs. Dobbson, 21 L. T. Rep., p. 189.)

AGENCY-WHEN PRINCIPAL BOUND BY CONTRACT OF AGENT-GENERAL RULE-BILL OF LADING AN EXCEPTION.

The general rule is, that to hold the principal personally liable on a written contract made by his agent, it must be executed in the name of the principal and appear to be his contract; but one of the several exceptions to this rule is, that a bill of lading signed by the master of a vessel in his own name, in the usual course of employment of the vessel, will bind the owner. (McFyer vs. Steele. Supreme Court of Alabama.)

AGENCY-WRITING UNDER SEAL HELD BINDING ONLY ON AGENT.

A sealed instrument in these words, "Twenty days after date I promise to pay to JT, or order, $442, value received. Given under my hand and seal," &c., and signed "B W (seal) agent for C C." Held, the obligation of the agent only, and therefore not admissible evidence against C, when unaccompanied; with the offer of extraneous explanatory proof. (Dawson vs. Cotton. Supreme Court of Alabama.)

SHIPOWNER-POWER OF MASTER TO BIND.

The defendant having been registered owner of a vessel, a quantity of ropes was supplied for the repair of the vessel's rigging, she being about to proceed to Australia. This occurred in September, 1852; but upon an action to recover the value of the ropes, it was proved that in the July preceding the defendant had contracted to sell the vessel to another person, who had, in fact, appointed another master. It was held that there was evidence that the defendant had given authority to the master to pledge his credit, as owner, for the supply of the articles in question, and on appeal this decision was confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench, Mr. Justice Erle dissenting. (Hall vs. Robertson, 21 L. T. Rep., 193.)

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

The registered officer of a joint-stock banking company applied to prove against the estate of a deceased shareholder for calls due. By the deed of settlement an option was given to the representatives of deceased shareholders, either to sell the shares or to become members of the company on certain conditions. Prior to the exercise of this option, the directors were empowered to retain the dividends, and, after notice, to declare the shares forfeited. No option had been exercised by the executors in this case, and the directors had retained the dividends, but had taken no steps to declare the shares forfeited. They were not held to be entitled to prove for calls due. (Law Times Rep., 256.)

COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE AND REVIEW.

REVIEW OF THE MONEY MARKET-THE EFFECT OF POLITICAL AGITATIONS UPON THE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS-CAUSE OF THE RECENT EXCITEMENT-SPECULATIONS IN SUGAR-STATE OF GENERAL TRADE-THE BANK MOVEMENT-PRODUCTION OF GOLD-DEPOSITS AND COINAGE AT THE ASSAY

OFFICE AND MINT-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AT NEW YORK FOR MAY, SINCE JANUARY 1, AND FOR ELEVEN MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR-CASH REVENUE FOR THE SAME TIME-IMPORTS OF DRY GOODS-EXPORTS OF DOMESTIC PRODUCE.

THE large payments from the United States' Treasury on various accounts, at the different depositions, and especially the large amount paid out to the holders of the Texan bonds, have caused a large surplus of unemployed capital at the various money centers, and particularly at New York, Philadelphia, and Boston; but there has been a less active demand for money in Exchange for prime securities, and the markets have lacked animation. The dismissal of Mr. Crampton and the British consuls, has created some anxiety in the community, which has been augmented by the belligerent tone of the Canadian papers, aud the implied threats contained in a portion of the Parliamentary discussions upon this subject; and there has consequently been a growing indifference to engage in financial operations, until the result is known. At the date of writing this article, no positive information has been received, but it will now be daily expected. We do not believe that the British government will take such exceptions to the course of our executive, as to suspend diplomatic intercourse with this country. No surer method of augmenting the existing difficulties, and strengthening the antipathies caused by the recent estrangement, could be devised. We know that many of our readers, and especially that portion of them engaged in commerce, have thought that the