BOULT V. 8HIP NAVAL EESERVE. 209 �trouble on themselves, and have failed to prove more than an insignificant part of the damages claimed, and in fact appear to have instituted a frivolous suit. Decree acoordingly. ���BouLT and others v. Ship Naval Eeseeve, etc. �{District Court, D. Maryland., January 13, 1881.) �. Chabtbb-Pabtt. — The charterers agreed to pay for the vessel a lump 8um. They procured, to he put on board by freighters in Liverpool, a cargo of iron ore, at a rate of freight which, on the amount of oro put on board, would have exceeded the lump sum ■whlch they were to pay. The charter stipulated that the master should give the charter- ers a draft for the excess of freight between the charter and the biU of lading, the draft to be drawn on the ship's consignee at the port of discharge, payable 10 days after ship's arrivai. The charter also contained a stipulation that the charterers were not to be held liable for any loss of freight arising from leakage, brealsage, drainage, or any other cause beyond Iheir control. The bill of lading flxed the freight at a certain rate per ton of c&rgo ddinered. On delivery of cargo at Baltimore, there was found to be a considerable loss of weight, and the freight on the actual output was less than the lump sum mentioned in the charter. It appeared that the loss of weight was not attributable to any fault of the ship or owners, and that some loss Of weight on such a cargo was always to be expected. �(1) Hdd, that as the bills of lading called for freight only on the weight delivercd, and that as the freight on the actual delivery fell short of the lump sum, there was no excess payable to the charterers. �(2) Hdd, that the stipulation that charterers were not to be liable for any loss of freight arising from causes beyond their control, was not to be so interpreted as to entitle them to deraand a flctitious ex- cess of freight which the bill of lading did not entitle the ship to col- lect �Suit Bbtween Fobeigners. — The charter- party was executed in Liverpool, between British subjects, and the vessel was a British ship, but the vessel having been attached within the district, and it appear- ing that ail the f acts necessary to determine the case were sufflciently proved without taking testimony under a f oreign commission, hdd, that justice would be promoted by the court taking jurigdiction and disposing of the case. �In Admiralty. Charter-party, v.5,no.2 — li ����
