TOLOMEO GANDOLFO v. THE AFRICAN PLANTATIONS COMPANY AND ANOTHER

[Delivered by Viscount Haldane.]

In this case the facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment given by Mr. Justice Porter

on the 21st March, 1921, concurring with the Chief Justice. Their Lordships need not go

into the history of the litigation. It is sufficient to say that on the 2nd May, 1918, the Writ of Summons was issued at the instance of the African Plantations

Company against the defendant, Tolomeo Gandolfo, the Master, and Murialdi Giovanni,

the representative of the owners of the ship "Estrella," and a motion was made to stop

the clearance of the ship "Estrella," the subject of the Charter Party, which was at the

time in Accra Roads. There were various proceedings and adjournments. At first the

respondents were advised by Mr. Renner, who later appeared for Mr. Gandolfo, the

present appellant. On the 7th May an order was made by the Court that the clearance of

the ship "Estrella" should be stopped and the ship detained pending security being given

in the sum of £5,000 for any damages which might be given against the defendants.

Under the Charter Party the ship chartered was to have sailed from Accra with a certain

cargo, and, as a breach of the contract on the part of the shipowners was apprehended,

security was asked and obtained to the extent of £5,ooo. That money was paid out to the

African Plantations Company, and the ship was allowed to sail. That did not end the

matter, because the case went on as a suit for damages against the owners of the ship for

breach of the provisions of the Charter Party, and the Court had before it various

affidavits, notably an affidavit from which it appeared that Mr. Gandolfo, the present

appellant, disputed his liability, saying that he was only the servant of the owners of the

ship, and it appeared when the Charter Party was put in evidence that he was no party to

the Charter Party. A new feature introduced itself into the suit. A question was raised as

to the propriety of Mr. Renner's appearance on behalf of the defendants, one of whom

was the present appellant, having regard to the fact that he had been employed by the

other side in the earlier stages of the matter, and there was much dispute and discussion

as to that, on which their Lordships do not intend to express any opinion. It may be that

the Court below were quite right in thinking that Mr. Renner was precluded from acting.

Then there appeared another gentleman, probably brought there by Mr. Renner, and the

point was ta