HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0483 and id is 1 raw text is: 178 THE PRINCE OF AUGUSTENBURG 2 HAGG. 92.
PRINCE OF AUGUSTENBUG. May 15, 1827. -The private adventure of a
purser in a Danish East Indiaman (the ship being condemned as droits of
Admiralty at Calcutta) restored.
This ship and cargo, the property of the Danish East India Company, were con-
demned at Calcutta as droits of Admiralty ; and upon an application to the Lords
of the Treasury on behalf of Peter Leisner, the purser, to be indemnified for the
condemnation of his private adventure, the matter was referred to this Court.
Jcnner.-The private adventures of the master, and several of the officers of this,
and many other Danish vessels, have been restored by the Court; but there is no
instance of a restitution to pursers on board Danish East Indiamen. They act,
however, in a similar capacity to pursers on board the English East India Company's
ships ; are the third ship's officers ; are called assistants ; have only nominal
wages, without any commission on the cargo, but are allowed private adventures
free of freight. A purser therefore is materially distinguishable from a supercargo ;
and being an essential officer on board these Danish ships, is entitled to the privilege
conceded to the masters and other officers of Danish vessels.-He then moved the
Court to decree [92] restitution of the private adventure, and to direct the proceeds
to be paid to the claimant or his attoriley.
I The King's Advocate observed, that in the American war the claims- of super-
cargoes were in a few instances disallowed. He did not oppose the motion.
Motion granted.
JANE VLET -(Tindell). June 8, 1827.-Where a bottomry bond is admitted
to be drawn in legal form and entitled to payment, the parties are bound by the
terms of the agreement ; and the Court will not refer the matter to the registrar
and merchants to make such a deduction on account of the rate of exchange
as is made in ordinary cases of mercantile negotiation.
This was a cause of bottomry. The bond recited that in August 1826, the
master of the Jane Vilet, obtained from Brown, Hoyles, and Norris, merchants
at St. John's Newfoundland, the sum of £231, 5s. 1d. sterling, to refit the vessel ;
which sum was to run as respondentia on the block and freight, at a premium of
fifteen per cent. for her return voyage to Liverpool ; and that the principal and
premium, amounting together to £265, 18s. 10d. sterling, should become due in ten
days after the ship's arrival at her moorings at Liverpool ; or, in case of her loss,
such an average as by custom shall have become due on the salvage.
Jenner for the bondholder.
Lushington, contra.
Judgment-Lord Stowell : This is a bottomry bond, admitted to be drawn in a
legal form, and as such [93] entitled to payment. These bonds have always been
regarded as matter of serious obligation, protected by the terms of agreement
between the lender and the borrower; nothing else is looked to but what the lender
demands and the borrower hgrees to ; nobody has a right to alter that agreement.
The demand so agreed to is the true measure of the contract, and cannot be altered
or modified by either party. In the present case the bond is fully submitted to,
but the party who is to pay claims a reduction, on account of an usual reduction
which takes place in payments of an ordinary kind, and he desires a reference to the
registrar and merchants.* This, however, is not a mercantile case; it is a question of
law (if it be a question),upon which a Court holding plea upon such contracts is entitled
to decide ; and such a reduction in my opinion is not at all applicable to a written
contract of this high nature. The extent of the necessity is measured in the original
contract, and cannot be reduced by rules that apply to cases of ordinary negotiation ;
the only effect of it would be that a higher demand would be made in such cases
by the lender. I am of opinion therefore that no such right exists, and that it cannot
be extended to a contract of so sacred a character ; it would be nugatory if it did.
I pronounce for the obligation expressed in the contract with costs.
* It was stated on affidavit, that it was the constant custom to reduce the
Newfoundland sterling money, when payable in Great Britain, into British sterling
money, according to the rate of exchange between the two places.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0483&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)