582 
THF TROPICAL AQRiOULTURIST. 
[February 2 , 1891 . 
Singapore to Loudon. The particulars of the damage 
were as follows 1,094 bags of pepper, weigh- 
ing 70 46 tons, at 6 d per lb. arrived value 
3,9452 15s. The plaintiffs claimed (1) 3,9452 15s 
and interest ; (2) alternatively damages. The 
defence and counterclaim were substantially to the 
following effect : — The defendants alleged that 
the plaintiffs were not the owners of the pepper or the 
holders of bills of lading in respect thereof, and that 
they were not entitled to maintain this action. The 
defendants denied that there had been any breach of 
the contract contained in the bills of lading. They 
alleged that by the said bills of lading the pepper was 
to be delivered to the plaintiffs, only unless prevented 
by certain excepted perils, and that the delivery to 
the plaintiffs was, in fact, prevented by the said ex- 
cepted perils. With respect to the alternative claim, 
the defendants denied that they wrongfully deprived 
the plaintiffs of the pepper or of any portion thereof, 
and that even if it was the property of the plaintiffs, 
it was lawfully and necessarily sold in the interests of, 
and on behalf of, the plaintiffs, and that the defen- 
dants had always been ready and willing to account for 
the proceeds of sale of the said pepper to the lawful 
owners thereof, ou being paid the money due to them 
(the defendants) in respect of the freight of the .said 
pepper and other charges in connection with the same. 
The defendants had paid into court in this action, in 
respect of the said pepper, on account of the sale 
thereof, an amount which they stated to be far in 
excess of any balance due to the plaintiff.?. The de- 
fendants further pleaded in the alternative that the 
contr.act for carriage of the goods was entered into by the 
master of the defendants’ ship as the agent of the char- 
terer of that ship, and that she, being a German ve,=sel 
and entitled to fly the German flag, was also entitled 
to all the privileges of a German ship ; that the 
defendants and charterers of the said vessel were 
German subjects, resident in Germany, and that the 
master was a subject of that country ; that the cbarter- 
party was a German cov -raet, .and that the contracts 
conta’ned in the bi'ls of lading were made and entered 
into Bubjec; ':o Germsu iaw;tl:.at, by that law, the 
sale of the goad: anicr ihecircuinsiances, at the place 
wusia and . 'r fb . linm -.vI e a the a-ere .‘old, was lawful 
avid right, and that i-he def. ndai ts incurred no liabilty 
hy reason of the said sale ; that the defendants are, 
by German law, entitled to receive from the plaintiffs 
or owners of the said goods or holders of the bills of 
lading the freight agreed upon and specified, and that 
the defendants should be entitled to set off the said 
freight and other charges incurred by them or their 
agents on and about the said goods against the proceeds 
of sale of the same in their hands, and that the plaintiffs 
are only entitled to the excess, if any, of the realised, 
value of the said goods (if such goods, or any part of 
them, belonged, in fact, to the plaintiffs) over and 
.above the amount of such freight, together with the 
ehargea upon the said goods. The defendants 
further alleged that they had always bceu ready and 
■willing to pay over any such excess in value, and 
that the amount in court -svaa far greater than such 
exotiss; and, by way of a countorcIa,im, the defendants 
asked that they should be paid for the carriage of the 
s-iid goods or any part thereof belonging to the plain- 
tiffs; also for charges incurred and disbursements 
mac'-: by them on account of the plaintiffs in 
respect of the goods; and f hey claimed to receive from 
the plaintiffs their due contribntion to general average 
charges on account of the s-iid goods or such portion 
tliojeof as belonged to the plaintiffs. In the alterna- 
tive, !he defendants claimed freight aud charges on 
the goods in accordance with the laws of tho German 
iimpire, by which, they said, the contract was gov 
'stmd. Tho defendants further said that, .subsequently 
to the institution ot these proceedings, they liad ascer- 
4 aiii'-d that the amount paid by them into court 
was 2172 4,., 3 I in excess of all possible claims by the 
plaintiff,, and they aslced ropayftient of that spm from 
.hoplai'.tiff-.. who had n-ccivi d the whole of the tuiii 
of 1645/ paid into court by tiro delcndiintH. Portions of 
i.he ilamagcd cargo were disohargod, -were surveyed by 
/ijcrchauh called iji for tho purpose, and, upon their 
recommendation, were sold at Cape Town, as damaged 
goods, at public auction, for the benefit of whom it 
might concern. With regard to the pepper, it was 
contended that, being of the kind known in 
the trade as Kongpoot pepper, it was almost 
impervious to damage by sea-water, that the sale was 
quits unnecessary, and that after immersion in salt 
water, if it were allowed to dry, by exposure to the 
air or sun, it would he practically ns good 
as before its immersion. Some considerable por- 
tion of the pepper sold at these public 
sale.s in Cape Town was, in fact, reshipped 
to England by the mail steamer “ Garth Castle ” and 
“ Tartar,” the first of such shipments taking place 
within eight days or so of the first, and on the very 
day of the second public sale of cargo ex “ August.” 
On arrival here it was sold by Messrs. Lewis & Peat 
of Mincing-lane, and fetched, at public sale, prices for 
the most part only about a farthing or three-eighths 
of a penny per pound below full market prices ruling 
for sound pepper of a similar kind. Of the 240 bags 
told ex “ Garth Castle,” 159 bags were classified by 
the dack samplers as “ sound,” while of the remainder 
of that shipment fifty-one bags were catalogued as first 
class, twenty-three at second class, six as third class, 
and one as fourth class damaged. Of the 101 bags 
ex “ Tartar,” eighty-lhree were sold as “ sound,” six- 
teen as first class, and two as second class damaged. 
These were sold by tho tame brokers on November 
13th and fetched 5Jd., and 5Jd., and 5d. per lb. for 
the three descriptions respectively, the market having 
fallen between the sale of the previous shipment and 
the above date. Buyers would be aware that the pepper 
bad been reshipped from tho Oape of Good Hope, 
where no pepper was grown. They would, consequently, 
suppose that some reason had existed to cause its 
transhipment, and would bid slightly lower prices in 
consequence. 
Mr. Thomas Cuthbertson, of the firm of Edward 
Bousteacl & Co.. London, and Boustead & Co., 
Singapore, was the first witness for the plaintiffs. He 
stated that he had carried on business at Singapore 
for a number of years. His firm made the contract 
for this pepper, cost, freight, and insurance, to Messrs. 
Edward Pink & Sons, their co-plaintiffs in this ac- 
tion. It was not the same as what is known as 
Singapore pepper, which was prepared by smoke and 
heat, and would on that account more readily damage 
by water. This Kongpoot pepper was sun-cured, and 
could thus bo more easily decorticated and ground 
into white pepper. Inside the outer husk was a skin 
which was almost impermeable. The skin, even if the 
sea- water were to penetrate the husk, would effectually 
prevent damage to the kernel which was inside 
it. The sole use for this kind of Kongpoot pepper 
was for ground white pepper. The “ August” 
brought back about 638 bags of the shipment. 
Mr, Thomas Pink said he happened to see samples of 
the pepper ex“Tartar” and “Garth Castle” not knowing 
at that time that they had been drawn from the lot ship- 
ped in the “August.” The samples were perfectly “sound” 
except those which represented the bags classified as 
“damaged.” He would have bought some of the 
lots, but that he expected the “August’s” shipment 
to reach his firm about that time or soon after. The 
pepper would do quite well for making into white 
pepper, as the outer husk would be removed by the 
process called “ peiarling,,” and the kernel would be 
ground into white pepper, this beipg jthe particular 
use for Kongpoot pepper, 
Mr. William Lee Darling, foreman sampler at the 
London and St. Katharine Docks, who sampled and 
classified 101 bags of the pepper ez “ Tartar,” and Mr. 
Stockw, ell, formerly foreman in a similar capsciy at 
tho East India Pock, W'ho sampled and classified the 
240 bags ex “ Garth Castle,” were called to speak to the 
correctness of the classifications, as was also Mr. 
William James Barker, inspector h£ cargoep at the 
latter dock. Mr. Andrew De vitt, a member of the firih of 
Lewis & Peat, brokers of Mincing-lane, was also called 
by the plaintiffs. This witness, in cross-examination 
by Dr. Raikes, admitted that, in his opinion, sea- 
water would affect this class of pepper a little, making 
