in respect to the contents and value of the box in making a
claim in this suit which he knew to be far beyond its real value. He claims that the case was worth $8,000, the contents being chiefly valuable photographic negatives, books and pictures, with household goods, bedding, etc. A great deal of evidence has been taken bearing upon this issue. The libellant has sworn to the contents of the box, and he is corroborated to a considerable extent by other testimony. In respect to the value of the negatives, which constitute the chief part in value, it appears that the libellant had sold out to one Cooper the models from which the negatives were taken, and had, by his agreement with Cooper, disentitled himself to make profitable use of at least some of the negatives in this country. The proper valuation of the negatives, considedng the agreement with Cooper, may be very difficult to ascertain, but I am not satisfied that the valuation put upon them by the libellant is so extravagent and purposely so exaggerated as to make the present claim fraudulent. The circumstances chiefly relied on by the claimant! as sustaining this defence seem to me of very little weight, and, upon the whole testimony I think they have failed to establish the fraud set up in the answer. 2. Another defence is that by the bill of lading the limitation of liability is fixed at £100. It is enough to say that this limitation is no answer if negligence be proved. Lockwoori v. R. Co. 17 Wall. 357. 3. Dnreasonable delay of the consignee, after notice by public advertisement of the time and place of discharge, according to the alleged custom of the port, is a.lso relied upon as a. defence. The point made is that after a reasonable time was afforded to the consignee to take away his goods upon their being unladen, the liability of the ship in-rem ceased; that even if there was negligence afterwards, for which the shipowners might be responsible in 8. new relation of warehousemen, the ship is not so liable. And it is insisted that the consignee should have come for his goods during the day, Tuesday, and that his delay beyond 5 o'clock on that day was unreasonable, and discharged the ship from all liability.
UNNEVEHB V. STEAMSHIP HINDOO.
The general principle is well settled that the consignee, on receiving notice of the time and place of discharge, must attend and take his goods within So rE!asonable time. Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; Sprague v. West, Abb. Adm. 552; The 386; The Kath. Santee, 2 Ben, 523; The Prince Albert, 5 leen ..V ary, 8 Ben. 169. But there are several reasons why this defence is not available to this ship in the present case. No actual notice of the time alild place of discharge was given to the libellant. The claimants rely on a constructive notice, by publication in the Journal of Commerce, and have attempted to show & custom or usage within which they seek to bring this case. The evidence, if it establishes any usage in this respect, shows that the custom of steamship companies is to give a notice of three or four days. In this case only one day's notice was proved. The evidence as to the usage is also conflicting, The fact that the libellant's agent in New York knew of the arrival of the ship does not dispense with notice of time she would discharge. These eight cases were, in the absence of an invoice, passed through the custom-house by the libellant's agent on :Monday, the fifth day of June, upon an application for an appraisement, in such a way that it was necessary for them to go to the appraiser's 13tore. AccOl'd· ingly, they were not to be received by the consignee, from the ship, like goods for which a. permit was obtained. They were to go to the public store, and to be taken there by the cart-men employed by the custom-house authorities. And the proof is that the claimants land on their pier goods which are to go to the public store; that while on the pier they pass the custom-house officer sta.tioned there for the purpose, among other things, of passing such goods and of seeing that they do go to the public store; and when they are taken by the public store carman the ship takes the carman's receipt for them on the ship's cargo delivery book. The proof is that the custom-house officials merely exercise such supervision over goods, discharged as is necessary to prevent their being taken away without a permit; or, if they be not permitted goods, by any other person than the publio
store carman. The custom-house does not assume any such possession or custody of the goods while on the pier as relieves the ship from""their safe-keeping till they are delivered in due course of business to the public store carman. The pier was in the exclusive occupation of the claimants, and the gates at the head of the pier were locked by them at night. Custom-honse inspectors remained on the pier during the night. In the present case the necessary order authorizing the custom-house inspector to have these eight cases sent to the public store was not received by them at the pier in season for them to be carted away on Tuesday afternoon, and in the goods did not pass the inspectors and receive their mark showing their destination that day. This was done as to the seven cases that remained the next morning. Whether this delay was unusual in the routine of customhouse business, or if so who was with fault in this delay, is not shown. Nor does it appear that the libel. lant could have done anything to prevent the delay in carting the goods to the public store. Nor if he had gone to the pier could he have taken the goods away. Under these circumstances, it is clear that he is not chargeable with any unreasonable neglect to receive the goods. The course of business on the part of the claimants as to goods destined for the publio store was shown to be such that there was no delivery of them .until their delivery to the public carman. See the St. Laurent, 7 Ben. 7; Th, Ville de Paris, 3 Ben. 276; Oarnana v. Packet 00. 6 Ben. 517. 4. It is also insisted that the claimants used proper diligence in the watching of the goods during the night. The pier was about 700 feet long, and was covered by a close shed, in which there were left five openings, two on one side, and three on the other. The interior of the shed was well lighted with gas. These goods were lying nearly opposite one of the openings, and about 200 feet from the gate at the inner end of the pier. The pier is open underneath, so thai small boats can pass through from side to side. Claimants employed one watchman, who, about half past 1 o'clock, heard a noise at the lower end of the pier. Before
FARR V. STEAMSHIP FARNLEY.
that time he had been near the upper end of the pier. On hearing this noise he went to the lower end of the pier and remained there, on the outside and on the inside of the shed, an hour or more., Meanwhile the libellant's box was taken away by river thieves. Comment seems unnecessary. It was a clear case of negligence. Decree for libellant, with costs, and a reference to oompute damages.
F ARR e.nd others
THlll BRITISH STEAMSHIP FARNLEY.
(District Cowrt, D. MU/I'yZand. March 30, 1880.
'COLLISION-STEAMER AND VESSEL-BURDEN OF PRooF.-In case of a collision between a steamer and sailing vessel, the steamer is held in 'ault unless it can be shown that she was prevented from performing her duty by BOrne fault on the part of the sailing vessel. SAME-IMPENDING DISASTER-DUTY OD' MASTER.-Where the collision was impending through the fault of the steamer, the of the ing vessel is only required to act with reasonable skill and judgment.
In Admiralty. Brown <t Smith, for libellants. Thomas <t Thomas, for claimant. MORRIS, J. Collision between the schooner A. R. Weeks and the steamship Farnley. The libel alleges that the schooner A. R. Weeks, 445 tons, laden with coal, sailed from Baltimore for Boston on the eighth of September, 1879, and was proceeding down the Chesapeake bay with a seven-knot breeze from the north-west, her course being S. by E. t E., and on her starboard tack, with all her proper lights burning, when, at 7: 30 P. M., the lookout noticed a mast-head light, distant nearly five miles, and soon after discovered a green light; that those in of the 'schooner continued to watch the mast-head and green light until ·the hull of the steamship could be seenj that when the lights were first seen they bore about one point on the schooner's starboard bow; that the schooner continued her course until the vessels were about a cable length apart,
the steamer continuing still on the schooner's starboard how, when suddenly the steamer showed her port light, and came squarely across the course of the schooner; that the schooner had continued to hold her course during all the time, Lut when it was discovered that a collision was unavoidalJle the master of the schooner ordered her helm to starboard, in the hope of easing the force of the blow; but the starLoard Low of the schooner struck the port side of the steamship, forward of the bridge, and the schooner was so injured that she filled with water and sank within an hour. The answer of the claimants of the steamer alleges that she was proceeding up the bay at four miles an hour, using but one of her boilers, the other being disabled, but with speod sufficient to make her respond to her helm; that her regulation lights were properly placed and burning, a Chesapeake bay pilot on her main bridge, her mate on the skeleton bridge, and a lookout on the bow, when, a little after 7 P. M., the pilot and mate saw, with the aid of a glass, the sails of the schooner, four or five miles off, a quarter of a point on the steamer's port bow; that at 7: 20 P. M. the pilot and mate saw, , and the lookout reported, the red light of the schooner threequarters of a point over the steamer's port Low, between three and four miles off; that the helm of the steamer was ported, and in few seconds put hard causing the steamer to fall off more than three points to the starboard; that the vessels continued to approach until within less than a quarter of a mile apart, the schooner being then between three and four points on the steamer's port bow, and her red light only visible, when she suddenly starboarded her helm and turned her head directly across the track of the steamer, exhibited only her green light, and ran into the steamer; that the speed of the schooner was from seven to eight miles an hour, and that of the steamer four, so that their combined speed was between 11 and 12 miles, and that after the schqoner changed her course there was not time to check the speed of the steamer, but her best plan was to try to pass before they should come together. The libellants produced the master of the schooner, whose