{x)  1  Peake,  61.  (i)  Leidemann  v.  Sohultz,  23  L.  J.,

{y)  Cuthhert  v.  Cumnung,  24  L.  J.,  C.  P.  17  ;  King  v.  Hinde,  12  h.  E.  (Ir.)

Ex.  198,  310.  113.     Cf.  Hohnau  v.  PeruTian  Nitrate

{z)  Buolde  V.  Knoop,  L.  R.,  2  Ex.  Co.,  5  Seas.  Ca.  (4th  Ser.)  657.
125;  Bottomley  j».  Forbes,  5  Bing.  N.  C.  (c)  See  Norden  v.  Dempsey,  1  C.  P.
121.     Cf .  Duckett  V.  Satterfield,  L.  R.,  D.  664.    See  the  remarks  on  this  case,

3  C.  P.  227.    As  to  the  meaning  of  infra,  s.  199.
CONSTKUCTION  OF  THE  CONTRACT  AND  CUSTOMS  OF  TRADE.  215

to   be  within  the  Baltic,   though  it  was  not  so  regarded  hy    Sect.  169.
geographers  {d).
170.  Where  a  word  is  understood  in  a  special  sense  in  the  trade  Presumption
in  which  the  parties  are  engaged,  the  presumption  is  that  they  have  meaning^was
used  it  in  that  way.     "  "Where  it  is  shown  that  the  term  or  phrase  intended,
has  acquired  a  peculiar  meaning  in  the  trade,  it  is  primd  facie  to

be  taken  as  used  with  that  meaning,  unless  upon  construing  the
whole  contract  you  can  see  that,  either  in  express  terms  or  by
necessary  implication  the  parties  intended  to  use  it  in  a  different
sense"  (e).
171.  A  meaning  which  differs  from  that  ordinarily  accepted  will  Evidence  of
not  be  adopted  upon  mere  opinions  of  persons  conversant  with  the  is  not  rele-
trade.     The  evidence  must  show  that  the  special  meaning  is  that  ^™  '

in  which  the  word  or  phrase  is  regularly  used  by  persons  engaged
in  the  trade ;  so  that,  where  such  persons  make  use  of  the  word,
they  clearly  understand  that  they  do  so  in  that  sense.
