530 PEDBBAli" EEPOiiTEB. �the ship, uiader Fuach, Edye & Co. The lattef telegraphed ihe former, during the negotiation, close "Eassian bark ' Hero, ' now at Cartagena, six shillings and three pence, Cork or- ders, UBual charter," and received for reply, "We eapnot get that rate, but can get six shillings, with privilege of conti- nent." August 27th, they wrote to Hoffman & Meyer "We authorize you to close the vessel and expect charter-party in the morning." After receiving the paper and resolving to alter it, they telegraphed, Hoffman & Meyer, "We must insert in 'Hero's' charter, vessel to sail in about fortnight. Please see Wrights at once." On forwarding the paper to Hoffman & Meyer, with the alteration, they expressed the hope that the latter wonld be able to obtain Wright's assent to the change. Hoffman & Meyer, in communicating the f act that Wright's signature had been obtained, eongratulated them- selves and Funch, Edye & Co. on their success in the trans- action, saying, "We have been very lucky to get this vessel through and charter sigued." �These communications, of themselves, would seem to leave no room for doubt that Hoffman & Meyer were acting in behalf of the vessel, alone, and that Funoh, Edye & Go., as well as themselveSj so understood. The only evidence to 'the contrary is that found in the testimony of Mr. Volokens, of the firm of Punch, Edye & Co., who says they did not place the vessel with Hoffman & Meyer for charter, but that the latter gentlemen, as agents for Peter Wright & Sons, applied to them to take freight, and that they simply closed with the offers made by Peter Wright & Sons, through such agents. The 'testimony of this -witness (who, no doubt, intends to be entirely'fair), shows, in my judgment, a strong bias in favor of the libellant. He seems to be especially on his guard, throughout, agaiust any form of expression or answer,tend- ing to show concert between his fiim and Hoffman & Meyer, repeating with unnecessary frequency the idea that Funch, Edye & Co. simply accepted the offer of Hoffman & Meyer as representatives of Peter Wright & Sons. He also seems for- getful of Hoffman & Meyer's remonstrances respecting the alteration of the paper, and their representations of Wright's ��� �
