APPENDIX TO ClIilONlCL5. 



807 



-^SpecialJuri/ — Sandilands v. the 

 East India Company. — This wasau 

 action on a charter party, brought 

 by the Captain of an East India 

 vessel, to recover from the Com- 

 pany who had employed her, the 

 amount of her freight from the 

 East Indies to this country. There 

 were several matters in issue, 

 amounting in the whole to twelve, 

 involving different questions of ac- 

 count and expenditure between 

 the parties ; but the main subject 

 of dispute was, whether the Com- 

 pany were bound to pay the freight 

 stipulated in the agreement. The 

 Company undertook to pay a sum 

 certain, in consideration that the 

 ship's cargo should be conveyed in 

 safety from her port in the East 

 Indies to the port of London. It 

 appeared, from the evidence, that 

 the ship performed her voyage in 

 perfect safety till her arrival at 

 Margate, when she was found to 

 be in such a condition that she 

 could proceed no farther, at least 

 without repair : the crew in con- 

 sequence went on shore, and an 

 inspector of the East India Com- 

 pany, who went down for the pur- 

 pose of taking proper measures in 

 this emergency, found it necessary 

 to take out her cargo, which he 

 afterwards sent to the London 

 market by small craft. It was im- 

 possible for the ship to undergo 

 proper repairs at Margate, so that 

 she could not have carried her 

 cargo to the port of London, un- 

 less she had (irst gone to some 

 dock in the river to be refitted, 

 and had then returned to Margate 

 to re-ship the cargo. The Com- 

 pany therefore insisted by their 

 counsel, Mr, Serjeant Shepherd, 

 (who was assisted by Mr, Adam) 

 that the condition of the charter- 



party had Dot been complied with 

 on the part of the plaintiff, and 

 therefore that he was not entitled 

 to recover on the agreement. The 

 consideration on his part had fail- 

 ed : he had undertaken to bring 

 the carjjo to London, and had only 

 brought it to Margate, from which 

 place the Company had been com- 

 pelled to convey their goods in 

 crafts, hired on the occasion. 



Mr, Serjeant Lens (with whom 

 was Mr. Serjeant Best) replied, 

 that this was a most extraordinary 

 defence to be set up by such a great 

 body as the East India Company. 

 They had all the advantage of the 

 outward and homeward voyage as 

 far as Margate. The unfortunate 

 accident of the ship did not keep 

 them back one day from the mar- 

 ket : and yet, under these circum- 

 stances, they came forward and 

 said, that they would have their 

 bond ; all the benefits of the agree- 

 ment were to accrue to them, and, 

 for a failure m one small particu- 

 lar, they refused to indemnify an 

 unfortunate gentleman, for all his 

 labours and his expenses, employed 

 for their service. This was, in- 

 deed, to claim for themselves the 

 strictest measure of justice accord- 

 ing to the very letter; but he 

 hoped, that their object was mere- 

 ly to ascertain an important ques- 

 tion, and not to ruin the fortunes 

 of his client, who had worked for 

 their use and advantage. 



Sir James Mansfield thought 

 the words of the charter-party 

 clear and imperative ; the plaintiff 

 was to be paid on consideration of 

 a contingency, which had not been 

 fulfilled. It could not by any pos- 

 sibility be construed, that to stop at 

 Margate and at London were the 

 same things. 



X2 



