Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/594

 GOTBERT V. BBITISH SHIP GEÔBGB BELL. 587 �ket for fish caught by French vessels for shipment to France ; and I think the price obtained there must represent, as near as it can be in any way gotten at, the average cost to ail parties «oncerned of catching and landing the fish there. �The great difference between the price at St. Pierre (16 irancs per quintal) and the price at Bordeaux (38 francs) has net been explained, and I think it must represent net only profit, but most probably considerable port charges or dutiea in France. Certainly, as the price in America for similar fish was not over 10 francs per quintal, 28 francs cannot be the actual value of the fish outside'of France, with merely freight to Bordeaux added. �It has been urged with force that, as in cases of collisions, where there is freight actually contracted for, the freight then pending, less the expenses of completing the voyage, is al- lowed as part of the damages ; and that in such cases as this, the fish themselves costing nothing, the price they would have produced in Bordeaux (which was the Briha,'B pOrt of destina- tion) should be regarded not as profit, but as the freight earned by the vessel and wages earned by the erew according to the several and respective shares of the vessel and the crew in the proceeds of the "catch." �It seems to me, however, that to adopt this rule would be to let in the very dangers and uncertainties Bought to be excluded by the decisions directed against allowing profits in any shape. It could be invoked.in every instance in which the owner of the vessel was also the owner of the cargo, and expected to make freight for his vessel by the profit on the cargo. It would open the door to ail the uncertainties of a calculation based upon fluctuating markets and a conjectural termination of the voyage. As the Briha was near to the port of St. Pierre, and could have proceeded there without appreciable expense, I think the price there, viz., 16 francs per quintal, without deduction for any expense of getting there, should be allowed as the value of the "catch" which was lost, with interest from the date of collision. With regard to the sum allowed for the cod-liver oil, which is àlso excepted to, I think the finding of the laaster is the only one ����