where  the  amount  of  damages  depended  on  the  conduct  of  the
party,  was,  ihai  primd  facie  he  was  entitled  to  the  full  measure  of
damages,  hut  the  jury  were  to  take  into  consideration  aU  the  eir-
eumstances,  and  if  the  plaintiff  had  acted  unreasonably  they  might
diminish  the  damages  on  that  account.  This  direction  was  approved
by  the  Court.
In  Hudson  v.  TTill  {a),  the  ship  was  to  have  been  loaded  with
sugar  at  Barbadoes ;  but  she  arrived  there  after  the  sugar  crop  had
been  shipped,  and  the  charterer's  agents  refused  to  load,  and
repudiated  aU  liability  imder  the  charter  party.  They  offered,
however,  to  load  a  cargo  of  sugar  at  St.  Vincent,  about  ninety
miles  off,  if  the  master  would  go  there ;  and  said  that  he  might
take  their  offer  "  under  protest."  But  he  refused  to  depart  from
the  terms  of  the  charter  party  without  an  indemnity,  and,  not
obtaining  this,  remained  at  Barbadoes,  insisting  upon  having  a
cargo  loaded  there.  After  waiting  more  than  the  lay  days  he  took
a  cargo  under  a  charter  made  v^ith  other  persons.  At  the  trial,
Coleridge,  0.  J.,  directed  the  jury,  that  the  master  might  reasonably
think  that  if  he  shipped  a  cargo,  under  protest,  elsewhere  than  at
Barbadoes,  he  might  discharge  the  charterers  from  liability  under
the  charter  party.  And,  on  motion  for  a  new  trial,  this  direction
was  held  to  have  been  right  (b).
In  Dimech  v.  Corlett  (c),  it  was  held  that  the  master  was  not
bound  to  accept  another  charter  party,  which  was  offered  by  other
persons,  before  the  agreed  days  on  demurrage  had  expired.  For
he  was  stiU  bound  to  be  ready  for  cargo  under  the  original  charter
party,  which  had  not  been  repudiated.
