THE HEEO, 531 �un'WillingneBS to allow it; while the correspoiidence shows; howearnest these remonstrances werejand how fully his firm was informed on this subject. I wotild notsay anything disparaging of the witness, personally. I do not doubt his honesty. That he should desire to sustain the charter is quite natural. His firm indicated its views on this subject Very clearly -when notified of the respondehts' repudiation of the paper, and again when conveying this notification to the libellant. I cannot regard the testimony of this witness as, sufificient to ovefcome, or even shake, the case made ont on the other side, opposed as it. is, not pnly by what the other witnesses, who speak on the , subject, say, but also by the plain import of the correspondenee of his own firm with Hoffman & Meyer. I regard it as clear that Hoffman & Meyer had charge of the interests of the ship, alone, in their transaction with Peter Wright & Sons ; and that ail parties so understood at the time. They are ship-hrokers, (as dis- tinguished from freight-brokers,) and belong to a class who, as Mr. Neall testifies, ordinarily represent the ship alone; and look to it for compensation. Here the compensation of Hoffman & Meyer comes from the ship ; they have no claim, and pretend to none, from the respondents. Their entire 4uty Tf^as to the ship, fpr.whioh they were bound to obtain the best bargain they could honestly procure. Unfortuuately they overstepped the line, and resorted to fraud. The libel- lant must therefore bear the consequences; 'A contract ihus cbtained, through the agency of those to whom the ship was entrusted for charter, cannot be ettforced. No question ean afise respecting the importance of the change made in the paper. Funch, Edye & Co. pronounoed it to be of the high- est importance, and it is shown that Peter Wright & Sons viewed it in the same light. iBut aside frotn this considera- tion, a party must be allbwed t6" make his bwn eontract,and cannot be held td one obtained' froln him thibugh fraud. Whether it is as favorable tohini, as one he might havebeen wUling to make, cannot be inquired into. �•l 'haVe not overlooked the rule, in cousidering this case, that 'brokers must sometimea^ be treated as agents of ,botb: ��� �
