AVES ISLAND. 175 



the case had heeu settled promptly. But we suhmit, that iu a court 

 of strict law even, a party would not be limited to a general haisty 

 estimate (the brief statements of which show it was made without 

 specific data) thus prepared, and which is clearly shown by incontest- 

 able proof subsequently obtained, was below what it ought to have 

 been. It would be amended by leave of a court, if it had been filed 

 as a bill of particulars, upon suggestion of the facts, on the ground 

 of mistake and error, and the having subsequently obtained correct 

 information, especially if the party was in a position (as Mr. Shelton 

 was in this case) in which he might be supposed to be ignorant of the 

 facts at the time. As to this additional charge, it is shown by the 

 testimony, that added to the 25,000 tons before charged, and both 

 together make out little more than one half only of the quantity then 

 , actually on that part of the isle v/e occupied of "first class" guano; 

 (worth more than our claim per ton ;) and such addition of this addi- 

 tional charge claimed by us, making the 37,500 tons iu all, gives but 

 a little more than a third of all the guano on such part. When Vene- 

 zuela oflers to pay the first charge of $312,500, she may properly 

 discuss the additional charge now made. 



And so as to the '^ false freights and damages, &c.,''' which we now 

 charge at |36,320, instead of $20,000 formerly charged. We stated 

 the charge generally in the statement of January 29, 1855 ; we had 

 not sufficient data to do otherwise. Any one having any knowledge 

 of such business can see our statement was mere guess-work. Now, we 

 give the items. They are proved to be correct and just. The law does 

 not require impossibilities of a party. In January, 1855, we did not 

 give sjjecifications ; in fact, some of these damages had not then fully 

 eventuated, though they did occur, and as the result of the expulsion. 

 The items show this. Our first estimate we are willing, under these 

 circumstances, should pass for what it is worth in weakening our claim 

 to the said damages now set forth and proved. We are content on 

 such score. When the |20,000 first stated is paid, it will be time 

 enough to object to the overplus. That sum would have been worth 

 more to us in January, 1855, than the $36,320 can be. If the $20,000 

 had then been j)aid (and the other accompanying charges equally as 

 just) it would have released us from embarrassment, saved the necessity 

 of grievous sacrifices, and protected the commercial credit and pre- 

 vented the insolvency and pecuniary ruin of Mr. Shelton. 



And as to the augmentation of the charge of $8,500 to $14,600, or 

 what is the same thing, the additional charge of $6,100 foV losses on 

 wharves, houses, &c., it is clearly sustained by proof of items, by 

 bills, accounts, &c., verified by witnesses, in addition to the indis- 

 putable testimony in the depositions filed. If this was a case between 

 individuals, every honest man, after he had examined the papers, 

 would be ashamed to dispute it. The particulars need not have been 

 adduced. Proof of what such wharves, &c., would cost there, how 

 much it would cost to keep thirty-five or forty men there seven months, 

 apd how much the implements ought to have cost, ought to be all-suffi- 

 cient. In a court of law it would be. We have furnished such proof 

 in the depositions, and then in addition, and to corroborate them, we 

 furnish proof of items of actual expenditure. They amount to $6,100 



