The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1900] MARINE REVIEW. 23 This was a contract of a very important character between ship build- ers of high commercial reputation and owners who desired to have what was at the time of this contract the largest cargo ship in the world, the contract price being upwards of £160,000. It was not denied that the ship if it retained the camber would be subject to great inconvenience and danger. It was not denied that the giving this vessel a camber at all as a steamer and not a sailing ship was an experiment, and it was gravely put forward that this serious experiment, and one on so great a scale which in a steamer had never been tried before by the defenders, was suggested and agreed to between the parties without a single line in writing from the commencement to the close of the transaction, al- though the contract was minute and specific in its written terms. The owner, who applied to experienced ship builders of great reputation, was supposed to have taken upon himself the risk of instructing the ship builders in their own business and informing them how they were to perform their contract, which involved the delivery to them of vessels with straight keels, and this, though subjects of far less importance and gravity, were matter of written correspondence and negotiation during the very period when the vessels were being built, and the builders were supposed to have acted without a single line to protect themselves if the experiment failed. It would require very cogent evidence to convince one that any such arrangement was made, and certainly the sort of evi- dence tendered could not be so described. The difference between a ship with six or seven bulkheads, such as these vessels, and a sailing vessel with only a few could not possibly have passed unnoticed by those who were agreeing to try a new experiment, and yet the only evidence which it was suggested could have called the attention of the ship owner to such a question was a casual conversation when one man was going up- pressed. But even thus mutilated, the plan showed a pencilled line which had been erased as far as it was possible to erase it, and that pencilled line it could not be denied showed 8 inches of camber. His lordship came very firmly to the conclusion that a camber of 8 inches or thereabouts was established. Mr. Hutchinson's object was plain and palpable. He endeavored to conceal the line showing the 8 inches of camber and the bulkheads, which, if allowed to remain according to the original plan, would be inconsistent with the case that he was supporting. He knew better than any of their lordships could know how much would be dis- closed 'by those plans if he had not tampered with them, and how im- portant was their destruction, and he was responsible for the original mistake. His action was a gross and wilful perversion of the truth. It appeared to his lordship that the first proposition of fact in this case, that the ship was dangerously cambered and contrary to the provi- sions of the contract, was established. The ship owners next complained that the co-efficient of fineness had been exceeded, and it appears that the time and circumstances under which the dispute originally arose were not without their importance. As early as September, and 'before the model sent by the defenders to the pursuers was in turn submitted to a naval architect to report upon, he reported that the co-efficient of fineness contracted for had been greatly exceeded, being .781 instead of the con- tract .770. The correspondence which ensued proved that the defenders had found out that they had made a mistake in their contract. Having discussed some of the technical evidence on the point, his lordship said he could not hesitate to prefer the calculations of the appellants' experts to those of Mr. Hutchinson, and it was not denied that a difference of co-efficient between .78 and .79 represented an additional carrying capac- ity of 120 to 170 tons. He came to the conclusion that the independent Bye pass Supply Float Regulator Check Valve Drainage Tank Discharge Auromaric TRAINAGE TANK FOR MaRINE USE. Pod Hececteg stairs and the other coming down on a staircase, and while passing a few words interchanged. Such a condition of things as was thus insisted on by the defenders was absolutely incredible. It was very likely some loose conversation passed upon the subject of other ship builders and the ships they were building, and that some of the witnesses had partly heard and partly misunderstood, and after an interval of years misrepresented un- intentionally. It would justly be asked what motive could the defenders have had in trying this rash experiment. The answer of the pursuers, corroborated in more than one way, was that a mistake had peen made with reference to the carrying capacity of the vessel, and that the cam- bering was intended to compensate for that mistake, and to make up the carrying capacity to the contracted amount; and it was both proved and admitted that it had had that effect. The mistake, which was but faintly contested, was made by a person by the name of Hutchinson. He was the foreman draughtsman to the defenders, and he prepared the plans of the four vessels in question. Of course, the plans would be the most satisfactory evidence of their design, and Mr. Hutchinson was in the possession of the plans, for which he was himself responsible. After this litigation had begun he received notice in due course to produce them, and what followed upon that notice was absolutely conclusive of the truth in this case. The dispute between the parties in respect of the camber had been narrowed to the question of whether or not it was 4 or 4% inches, or was as much as 8 inches. The bulkheads as laid down in the plans would have an important and almost conclusive bearing upon the dispute in question. Mr. Hutchinson, familiar, of course, with the ques- tion, familiar with the dispute, and familiar with the effect which the evidence of the plans would have on this issue, mutilated the plans with the view to their production. The longitudinal plan, which had been in one piece, he cut in half. The ends which showed the bulkheads fore and aft he cut from the lower half of the plan, and thus divided and re- drew the bulkheads from the finished lines of the vessel. The object of dividing the plan into two was apparently to conceal the fact that the bulkheads had been cut off at each end, since, if the plan had been pre- served without being cut into two pieces, it would at once have been apparent that something had been cut off at each lower corner of it, but when thus divided it would avoid suspicion that anything had been sup- Desicnéo ey: GVEtirs MD, evidence showed that in respect of the co-efficient the defenders had been guilty of a serious breach of contract. Assuming the right of the pur- suers to recover, it was a somewhat embarrassing position for their lord- ships to determine the amount of damages they were entitled. The ex- pense of remedying the camber was not all to which the pursuers were entitled, and it was upon the rest of the case which was more or less speculative that the great difficulty arose. It was proved that a vessel with a false keel was not as good a marketable article as one built without that defect. It was proved that the co-efficient of fineness provided for by the contract had not been supplied, and it appeared impossible to say that where skilled persons had stipulated for a particular co-efficient of fineness with reference to speed, symmetry, and economical drawing of the vessel a breach of the contract in that direction could be regarded as altogether immaterial, and only to be treated as though the damages in respect of the breach were merely nominal. The exact depth, though not of itself a breach of any contractual obligation, was nevertheless one of the injurious consequences resulting from the camber. The misfortune was that each side regarded it as necessary to enhance or diminish the damages by somewhat exaggerated calculation. It appeared to his lord- ship that both views were absolutely unreasonable. He believed all their lordships agreed with him that, taking all the heads of damage together and the cost of the. efforts to remedy the defects, they would be right in assessing the damages at £16,000. He therefore moved that the inter- locutor appealed from be reversed, and that the judgment be entered for £16,000; the respondents to pay to the appellants their costs both here APRIL 20, 99. "and below. ' Lords MacNaghten, Morris and Davey concurred, and the lord chancellor intimated that Lord Brampton, who had taken part in the hearing, but who was now unable to be present, was of the same opinion. Their lordships accordingly unanimously sustained the appeal, and award- ed the appellants £16,000 damages, with costs. One fare for the round trip within a radius of 200 miles on the Nickel Plate road on July 3 and 4. Tickets good returning until the 5th, inclu- sive. Write, wire, phone or call on nearest agent, C. A. Asterlin, T. P. A., Ft. Wayne, or E. A. Akers, C. P. & T. A., Cleveland. 106, June 28.