PEW V. liAUGHLIN. 41 �the owners resîding at Philadelphia becomîng the managing owner. The vessel sailed from Philadelphia on July 3d, but did not proceed to Trapani, or load libellants' cargo. In Jan- uary, 1878, libellants brought this suit. There was no direct evidence that either Gardner or any of the other owners knew of the alteration in the charter. W. F. Hager testified : "Be- fore the copies were drawn I am positive that we must have received the approval of Mr. Stetson of the alteration/made in the charter; otherwise we would not have sent them." And Mr. Stetson, upon having his attention called to this Btatement, testified : "I know it is a universai custom to do that thing, but I have no recollection of his having done so in this instance. If he had not done so I should have con- eidered the whole thing a forgery." And, being asked whether he would have approved of the alteration without consultation with the owners, he testified : "I should have felt that I should have committed a forgery if I had not consulted the captain or managing owner. I don't remember the circumstances." �Edward F. Pugh and Henry Flanders, for libellant. �J. Warren Coulston and Henry R. Edmunds, for respond- enta. �Butler, D. J. The vîew I entertain respecting the execu- tion of the charter-party renders unnecessary the considera- tion of any other question raised by the case. It may not be improper, however, to say that on examining the testi- mony as presented at the former hearing I found no serions difficulty in the libellant's way, except that whioh relates to the execution of the paper. My views respecting this ques- tion, as the evidence then presentod it, were reduced to writ- ing; but, as the libellant applied for permission to take further testimony, the opinion was not filed. It may not be nninteresting to insert it here, as preliminary to an examina- tion of the testimony since taken : �"The execution of the chartcr-party is not proved. That Captain Gardner signed it, is shown ; but that the libellant signed it, is not. The contract need not have been reduced to writing, in the absence of an agreement that it shoiild be^.. But there was such an agreement, and until the paper wa» ����
