(District Oowrt,JJ:. D. Ner.o York. June 26,1882'1
VUSSELS AND BOATa-LIEN FOR SUPPLIES.
Where family supplies and hay and oats were furnished by b dealer in Buffalo on board a canal-boat lying up there for the winter, and the boat, having departed before the bills were paid and come into the eastern district of New York, was there libelled by the provision dealer, claiming a lien upon the boat as for maritime supplies, and it appeared on trial that the horses and man were employed at work on the streets of Buffalo, and that the captain of the boat had not ordered the'supplies, nor l;he woman who owned the boat, and whosehusband was so at work on the streets with his horses, held, that the supplies were furnished on personal credit, and no lien on the boat arose out of the transaction.
Beebe, Wilcox, rt Hobbs, for libelant. L. R. Stegman and E. G. Davis, for respondent. BENEDICT, D. J.. The libelatit cannot recover in this action for two reasons: First, The supplies hi question were not ordered by the .c/l.ptain the boat, but by David Hulsapper,husband of and he, horses, was then employed in working on the streets of Buffalo for a contractor. The, articles sued for were· for the food o,f tpis man's family, the food of his horses, .and the food of a man hired to drive the hqfses hi'the streets of·Bufwhep. David Hulsapper was so employed on the falo st!eets. They were not to enable the boat to earn freight, nor purfor purpose. No lien upon the boat arises out of provisions and stores furnished unde.rsuch cIrcumstances. In the second place, the bill sued for constitutes a. part of an account of some $200, run up by David Hulsapper during the time he was working for the contractor upon the streets; and while it is no doubt true that these items were placed in a separate account and charged to the boat, the whole account was furnished with knowledge that the boat was not running, and that Hulsapper and his horses were working on the streets, and the attendant circumstances were such as. to indicate with sufficient certainty that the articles sued for were furnished on the personal credit of David Hulsapper, as confessedly was the rest of the account. The libel is therefore dismissed, and with costs.
,THE (lIT1: 011, TBOY_,
(District Oourt, N; D. New
CoLLISION-DAMAGES-REPORT OJ!' COMMISSIONER.
The estimate of damages as reported by the commissioner In a cause of collision adopted by the court..
In Admiralty. P. O. J. De Angelia, for E. D. Mathew8, opposed. COXE, D. J. This is a motion to confirm the report of the commissioner, and for a final, decree in favor of the libela.nt. The respondents ha.ve filed exceptions and oppose the motion, insisting that the commissioner has placed the damages at too high a figure. The commissioner reports that the amount of damage sustained by the libelant by reason of the matters set forth in the libel is the sum of $575. I have read all the evidence taken by the commissioner, and do not feel justified in interfering with his' conclusions. Three witnesses were sworn for the who place the damage to the injured boat at $800, $1,000, and $800, respectively. Two witnesses for the respondent place the damage at $250, and froPl$200 to $300, respectively. Their evidence, however, indicates that they did not see the boat until partia.l repairs had been made, some time after the eollision. If the question of damages, as an original proposition, was to be here decided, I do Dot see how, upon this evidence, they could be placed at a sum much below the amount stated in the report, assuming that the witnesses are entitled to equal credit. The commissioner, from personal observation of the witnesses, having had an opportunity to note their manner while testifying, is much better able to estimate correctly the weight to he given to their <>pinions than one who simply reads the written testimony.. The motion should be granted. '