(q)  See  Strang  v.  Soott,  14  A.  C.  601,
p.  608.
()•)  See  Pirie  4'.  Middle  Dock  Co.,  44
L.  T.  426,  p.  429,  per  Watkin  Wil-
liams, J.,  and  per  Willes,  J.,  Johnson  v.
Chapman,35L.  J.,C.P.  23,  p.  28.  And
see  infra,  ss.  373a,  402.
(s)  4  T.  R.  783.
GENERAL  AVERAGE.  433

captain  to  sell  a  quantity  of  wheat  wHoh  was  on  board  at  about  Sect.  367.
three-fourths  its  invoice  price.  It  was  held  that  this  was  not  a
general  average  loss.  "  I  am  of  opinion  that  this  is  not  a  general
average,  because  the  whole  adventure  was  never  in  jeopardy.
There  is  no  pretence  to  say  that  the  persons  who  took  the  corn
intended  any  injury  to  the  ship  or  to  any  other  part  of  the  cargo
but  the  com,  which  they  wanted  to  prevent  their  sufFering  in  a
time  of  scarcity.  Therefore  the  plaiutiSs  could  never  have  called
on  the  rest  of  the  owners  to  contribute  their  proportion  as  upon  a
general  average"  (t).
But  where  part' of  the  cargo  has  been  discharged,  and  a  danger
afterwards  arises  which  threatens  the  ship  and  all  that  remains  on
board,  that  is  sufficient.  Though  in  such  a  case  only  that  which
was  at  risk  would  contribute.
In  Whitecross  Wire  Co.  v.  Savill  (m),  the  ship  had  arrived  at  her
destination,  and  had  discharged  nearly  all  of  her  cargo  alongside  a
wharf.  A  fire  then  broke  out  on  board,  and  the  remaining  goods
were  damaged  by  the  water  poured  in  to  extinguish  it.  It  was
held  that  the  maritime  adventure  was  not  at  an  end  until  all  the
goods  were  delivered ;  and  that  the  ship  was  liable  to  contribute  to
the  damage  done  to  the  goods.
