Plaintiff  was  the  owner  of  seventy-two  chests  of  indigo,  which
formed  part  of  the  cargo,  and  he  sued  the  shipowners  for  not
delivering  them.  The  jury  found  that  the  ship  might  have  been
repaired,  and  also  that  the  goods  might  have  been  transhipped  and
forwarded.  It  was  held  that  the  sale  was  not  justified,  and  that
the  shipovmers  were  liable.
In  The  Australasian  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Morse  (q),  a  vessel  with  a
cargo  of  wool  was  wrecked  off  the  coast  of  Queensland,  and  the
wool  was  taken  out  of  her  in  a  damaged  state  and  brought  to
Eookhampton.  It  appeared  that  it  was  in  such  a  state  that  it
could  neither  be  carried  on  nor  stored;  that  it  would  in  two  or

(o)  See  Christy  v.  Row,  1  Taun.  300,  {p)  1  Bing.  243.    Cf.  Underwood  ■^.
p.  315.     Cf.  Soaife  v.  Tohin,  3  B.  &  Ad.  Eobertson,  4  Camp.  138.    Under  the  law

523.    But  this  Beems  inconsistent  with  of  Germany,  see  The  August,  (1891)  P.
the  right  of  the  party  to  the  contract  to  328,  supra,  b.  211.
require  that  the  master  shall  do  what  (y)  L.   E.,   4  P.   C.   222.      Cf.  The

heoomes  necessary.  Yarkand,  120  Fed.  Rep.  887.
POETS  OF  REFUGE.  365

three  days  have  lost  nearly  all  value,  unless  it  were  at  once  treated  Sect.  297.
by  various  processes;  and  that  such  treatment  could  not  be  obtained
on  a  large  scale.  The  wool  was  accordingly  sold  by  the  master  to
a  number  of  pui'chasers  in  small  lots.  And  the  jury  found  that  he
had  acted  for  the  best,  and  as  a  wise  and  prudent  man,  for  the
interest  of  the  owners  of  the  wool.  It  was  held  in  the  Privy
Council  that  the  sale  was  justified.
