528 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �Sons refusing to load her, she was obliged to obtain a charter at a lower rate, and this libel was filed to recover damages. �Edward F. Pugh and Henry Flanders, for libellant. �H. G. Word and Morfon P. Henry, for respondents. �BuTLBB, J). J. That fraud was practiced iu obtaining the respondents' name to the charter, is clear. Hoffman & Meyer were distinctly informed, while negotiating, that the prompt sailing of the vessel from Cartagena was an essential requisite to the contract. With this in mind, the terms were agreed upon, and reduced to writing, with a clear understanding that the paper should be signed as written. Mr. Young, oon- sequently, with the knowledge of Mr. Hoffman, marked the paper as examined and ready for the respondents' signature. Mr. Hoffman testifies that he understood Mr. Young's mark; that it was a sign the paper hadbeen examined, "sothat Mr. Neall, or any other member of the firm, could sign, without reading it through; that the sign was on the paper when it was received, and sent to flew York. He further testifies that he and Mr. Meyer objected, eamestly, to the alteration which Funch, Edye & Co. proposed to make; that Fnnch, Edye & Co. had agreed to sign the charter-party as prepared, without alteration. Hoffman & Meyer telegraphed to Funch, Edye & Co. "Don't alter, — vessel to sail promptly, — as Wrights will surely object to the same." And again, " Wrights insist to have charter to-day. They will eancel charter if you alter it, therefore post at once, unchanged, to avoid trouble." In short, Hoffman & Meyer knew that the paper expressed the definite agreement of the parties, and was to be signed as written; that Peter Wright & Sons would agree to nothing else, but would withdraw from the transaction if any alteration was made; and that when the paper should be returned, with Mr. Young's sign of examination and approval upon it, they would sign it without reading. After the alter- ation had been fully resolved upon and made, by Funch, Edye & Co., they requested Hoffman & Meyer to communicate with respondents about it; and were answered by Hoffman & Meyer that Mr. Neall had been seen and his consent obtained, "after a short struggle." This answer was wholly untrue. ��� �
