forgeq is, not void on, its face" but only:incom)illete or uncer.. taiu, may be introduced showing its validity. Such an incomplete instrument may 1;>e the subject of forgery., . There is nothing upon the :fil,ce ,of these tickets ,Which proclaims them void. They are in the usut\l form of such instruments which. do notor¢linarily COlltainthe expression of a consideration, ,or a dis,tinct expressed in words to admit, the holder. NQne the less the of them, if genuine, would find .them of legal efficacy if, the being given, they were arbit,rarlly refused admission, and came ,into court to enforce to the numerous authorities in support of their rights. In these propositions cited in the complainant's brief it will be sufficient to refer ,to People,v. Stearm, 21 Wend. 409; Com. ,v. Ayer, 3 Cush. 151; McCrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray, 211; Drew v. Peer, 93 Pa. St. 234; Wood v. & W. 838; Ta,ylerv. Waters,7 Tau,nt.374; Burton v. Scherpj, 1 Allen, J33; Magoverning v. Staples, ,7 Lans. 145. , 3. The,reffltor contends that the evidence submitted was by a certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular not ol;licer of the United States resident in Mexico, stating clearly that it is properly and legally authenticated, So as to entitle it to be received in evin SUPP(ilrt (>f the same criminal charge by 'the tribunals of Mex,ieo.The certificates are undoubtedly defective, but Judge Br,ATOHFORD, .in, Re Fowler, 18 Blatchf.437, 4 Itep. 303, held that authentication play by oral proof given here. See, also, Inre McPhun, 30 FecI. Rep. 57 ; In re Wadge, 15 F,ed. Rep. 364, 16 Fed. Rep. 332. The evidence in support of the certificates in this case, whieh was given by the witness .Alas, .was. under the rules laid down in these cases, competent and I!\lfficient. ' ,
THE SEA WITCH.·
TEBO ". THE SIl:A WTTOff.
(DiBtrict Court, 8. D.
York. March 22, 1888.)
,The yacht Sea Witch was owned by one W., who had authorized B. to pro, cure ber ,ssle. D. in turn employed a yacht broker, and negotiations were had tor 8 sale to oheF. About July let B. 's authority was revoked by W., who, on the Sd of Jllly, made an.inforlUal written instrument or sale to claim· arit. B. and, the broker; however, continued their negotiations with F., and , about. the 8th of July came to ,a 'Verbal agreement with him for a sale, after which the broker, at F.'s request,ordered libelant to doc8ulking on the yacht: The verbal agrljementbetween F. and the broker never ratified by the owner, and the work on the'vessel was stopped by claImant. Specill· , cations were filed to secure the lien, and this lihelfiled to enforce it. H/$(d, , ,that the repairs were mllde without the authority of the owner or agent. '.;/1' anyone authorized to charge them; no lien 'was therefore created 04 sel, and the libel should be dIsmissed.
LIENB-REpAIRB-":AuTHORITY OF OWNER OR AGERT-STAT& STATUTES.. ',. ·
! ' I
Reported.by'Edw. G., Benedict, Esq., of the New York. Dar.
,'" THE SEA. WI'l'CR.
Wilcox, Adams & Maeklin, for libelant. Goodr'ich, D,eady & Goodrich, for claimant.
BROWN, J. Between July 6 and 12,1887, the libelant performedcertain labor on the domestic yacht Sea Witch, in hauling her out, cleaning her bottom, and doing some caulking, amounting to $193.59. Specifications were duly filed to secure a lien under the state law, and this libel was filed to enforce it. The defense is that the repairs were made without the authority of the owner, and not, as required by the statute, upon any contract of the" master, owner, charterer, builder, or consignee, or by the agent of either ofthem. " The evidence shows that the yacht was owned by one 'She had been lying for a 10nK time unused in a basin at Twenty-fifth street, Brooklyu. WatheI\ had authorized one Bond, as agent, to procure a sale of the yacht, who had employed a Mr. Hubbe,a yacht broker, for that purpose. Negotiations were had with one Freeman, and, while these negotia,tiops were pending, Bond, at Freeman's request, authorized the yacht to be hauled out for examination. The evidence indicates that Bond's a:utporitywas revoked at least by the 1st ,of July. On July 2d the owner an informal written instrument of sale to the claimant. Bond and lIubbe, however, continued their negotiations with Freeman, and on,the8th came toa verbRl understanding with him for a purcbase; and either then, or soon afterwards, Hubbe, at Freeman's request, ordered the caulking to be done. A few days afterwards Freeman told Bond he was making repairs amounting, to about $200, and Bond said that no doubt the trade would go through, and it would be all right. ,The next day the claimant appeared at the basin, and drove off the men engaged by or-for Freeman,upon the yacht; and his verbal bargain with Bond was never ratified by the owner. Upon these facts I cannot find that the repairs, ar the caulking, were contracted for either by the owner or the agent of the yacht, or by anyone authorized to charge ,them. The case is different 'from that of The John Farran,: 14 Blatchf. 24. In that case full possession and apparent ownership had been" conferred upon the person who had contracted the debt. Here there, waif no such possession transferred; no act of the to mislead the libelants; no apparent right of possession was given to Free" man or to Hubbe, and there was no authority or semblance of authority from ,the owner to Hubbe to order any repairs. Notwithstanding, therefore, the inequity of the c]aimant'sobtaining the benefit of the caulking without paying for it, I do not see any legal ground on which I can aid the libelant in the recovery of his debt. As respects the charge for hauling ont, the evidence shows that thilt was ordered by the agent of Wathen, while he was owner, and before Bond's authority was canceled. Fo!' that item in the bill amounting to 825, I think the is entitled to recover, with interest and cOsts. The I constrained to disallow.
Ross et ale .
(Oi'I'cuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. March 26,1888.)
A charter-party provided that the charterer should have the opUon of can· eeliI!g it, if the ship wa,s not ready for a cargo of "lawful merchandise" on or before a certain day, and that he should have notine of such readiness. It appeared that at 2:50 P. H. of the day fixed, and while the ship was hunting a landing, so that notice could not be speedily delivered the charterer first notic!! of his intention to ship grain, which, was shown to be "lawful,' but not "general merchandise," requiring special preparations to make a ship ready for it. The ship was ready for a cargo of "general merchandise," and the requisite notice given the charterer at 4:12 P. H. of the day fixed. Held, that the ship complied with the charter-party, and that the charterer's refusal to furnish cargo was a breach of contract, the notice of intention to ship grain Dot being in reasonable time. '
In an action for refusal to furnish cargo according to the terms of a chartE!rparty, libelant may recov,er fan difference of freight between a cargo obtained and that contracted for, less freight refused hecause of space occupied by extra fuel required to make a longer voyage, but not for expenses incurred to :\\x .defendant's liability;;heship being unconditiopallyrefused, nor for dillllUrrage, when the ship was loaded in less time after the contract was repudiated than was allowed by the charter:party. party, where defendant afterwards offered to take the. ship at a lower rate, tlie difference between the two rates will betaken as the measure of damages, the case offering no better, and such a course being fair to both parties.
TO LOAD-MEASURE 011' DAHAGES.
8. BAME....,()FFER TO LOAD AT LOWER RATB·. ,1p. an action for refusal, to load a ship according to the terms of a charter-
Libel for damages. On appeal from district court. Libel for damages for breach of charter-party, by Thomas George Greenwell against Ross, Keen & Co. JaB. Me Connell, for libelant. Huntington and JQSePh P. HfYmOT, for.claimant.
, PARDEE, J. The charter-party contains, among others, the following stipulations,. to-wit: "Thatthe>vesselshall, with aU convenient speed. sail and proceed to New ,Orleans.all'S near thereto as she can safely get, and there loap under the rules and regldations of the New Orleans MaritimeA,ssociation, from the said merchants" their agents or assigns, as customary, a full and cOillIJlete cargo of lawful at the option oithe charterers. Fonrteen weather working days are to be allowed charterers for loading said vessel, which time is to commence on the day after the vessel is ready with clean-swept holds to receive cargo, and written notice (with surveyor's certificate of readiness attached) given of same to charterers. Should the vessel not be ready for cargo, at New Orleans, on OJ' before, the 28th December, 181i3, the charterers or theil' agents have the option of canceling this charter." , These, 'provisions, taken together, show that under the contract the ship could be refused, provided that the vesselshould not be ready for cargo at New Orleans on or before the 28th December, 1883; that the ship was to be loaded under the rUles and regulations of the New Orleane Maritime Association with a full and complete cargo of lawful merchan-