Appeal — Review op Evidence. — It is not sufficient upon an appeal to point out, or even demonstrate to the appellate court, that the verdict is against the preponderance of evidence, or that upon the same evidence other persons would come to a different conclusion; but if there is any evidence upon which the jury could have found its verdict, or if there is a substantial conflict in the evidence the verdict must be upheld.

Marine Insurance — Necessity op Sale op Cargo. — In determining the necessity of a sale by a master of a vessel of the cargo covered by marine insurance it is not necessary to demonstrate the impossibility of continuing the voyage with the cargo, or that if it was reshipped it would not sustain injury or create danger, nor is the actual condition of the cargo at the place of sale an absolute test of the necessity of the sale; but the question to be determined by the jury is ■whether a prudent man, in the exercise of his deliberate judgment, and upon a reasonable calculation of the future, under the light of the circumstances and facts disclosed by the evidence, would deem it necessary to sell the cargo.

Id. — Barratrous Sale by Master oe Vessel — Total Loss. — If a sale of an insured cargo by the master of the vessel is barratrous there is an actual total loss within the meaning of a marine insurance policy.

Id. — Sale in Bad Faith. — If the master acts in bad faith in selling the cargo for the purpose of serving his own ends, or acts against what he knows or believes to be the law, his conduct in selling the cargo is bar-ratrous, though he may think he is advancing the interests of the owners of the cargo in making the sale.

Id. — Barratry in Respect to Cargo by Bart Owner op Vessel. — The fact that the master is a part owner in the vessel does not incapacitate him from committing barratry, especially with reference to the cargo.

Id. — Evidence op Barratry. — Evidence that the cost of repairing the vessel was trifling and occupied only a few days, or that the ship was in a seaworthy condition and fit to make the voyage, and that there was no necessity for a sale of the cargo; that much of the cargo was sold before it was discharged, and some of it for a price beyond its cost; that the master, who was himself a part owner in the vessel, failed to notify the insured and the owners of the cargo of the damage or of the sale thereof, and that he abandoned the voyage and sailed for a distant port, is sufficient to authorize a jury to find that the sale was made in bad faith, and that the master was guilty of barratry.

In. — Evidence—Answer to Telegram. — A letter written by the agents of a board of underwriters, of which the defendant was a member, from the place of sale of the cargo to the board of underwriters, in answer to a telegram sent to the agents at the instance of the defendant, is admissible in evidence against the defendant, and no part thereof can be stricken out as being not responsive to the telegram.

In. — Report op Agent to Principal — Declaration op Principal. — The statement of facts connected with the disposition of the cargo from the general agents of the board of underwriters, of which the defendant was a member, is to be considered in the light of a report by a general agent to his principal, which is equivalent to a declaration by the principal himself.