(DE8t1'ic1 Oo'lVl't, B. D.New York. July 8, 1886.
011' GooDs-DAMAGE TO CARGO-DUTY 011' Qll'lRBS EXTRAORDINARY PROTECTION.
Where cargo about to be shipped needs extraordinary protection, it is the duty of the ship-owner to provide the stevedore wi.th the means for such protection.
.. 8.um-IHPROPER STOWAGE-OWl'l'ER'S KNOWLEDGE 011' METHOD 011' STOWAGIIlWB:tLlTY 011' STEVEDOO.
Certain hogsheads of molasses were sent to a vessel for shipment. The 'YesselwaB already stowed with bacon. With the knoWledge, and by the implied direction, of the agent of the vessel, themol88ses was stowed above . \he bacon, no tarpaulins or other means of protection for the bacon being , furnished to the stevedore. On the voyage the leakage from the molasse! inlured the bacon, and the ship-owner, having made good the 1088, brought thil luit against the stevedore to recover the money 10 ,paid. Held, that the IteVedare Wal not liable.
E. Oanverl and Oharle. Stewart Da"i,on, forUbelant. John H. Kemble. for claimants.
BENEDICT, J. I am of the opinion that the damage descnoed in the libel. 'being damage to bacon in boxes canaed by molasses, arose frommola,ss6s leaking out of the holes, and running upon the bacon during the voyage. It is t'tue that in discharging the cargo one hogshead of Jilolasaes slipped the hooks, and of its contents 100 gallons, perhaps, feU upon the boxes of bacon in the hold'below; but I do not think it is possible that such damage to 450 out of 580 boxes as is proved in this caaecould have arisen from the molasses which ran from the single hogshead which broke while discharging. Such injury as the proofs show to have been sustained by t},lis bacon must, _as it seems to me, have been caused by leakage from the 50 puncheons of molasses which were during the voyage stowed above the bacon. No doubt it was bad stowage to put half of such a shipment of molasses over the boxes of bacon. Leakage is a necessary incident to the transportation of hogsheads of molasses, and damage from that cause to the bacon stowed below molasses would be a natural result of such stowage. If, then, the defendant, as being the stevedore who undertook the stowing of the cargo, is responsible for the placing of those hogsheads of molasses over the bacon, I am unable to see any way of escape for him from liability for the damage that resulted. But I am of the opinion that. under the circumstances, the cannot be held responsible for pla.cing the molasses where he did, because of the fact that, when the molasses came down to the ship, the ship was full, the bacon already stowed, and there was no other place to put the molasses
Report-d by R. D. '" Wyllya Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.
other than the place where it was put. The agent of the ship knew, when the molasses came to, the ship, that the ship was full. When, therefore, as the evidence shows, he told the stevedore that this molasses would finish her, without indicating any desire that the bacon should be broken out, that was equivalent, under the circumstances, to a direction to the stevedore to put the molasses over the bacon, and relieves the stevedore from responsibility for damage arising from the selection of the improper place for the stowage' of the molasses. It is said that the stevedore made no attempt to protect the bacon from leakage of the molasses by tarpaulins or otherwise. This is also there is no proof ,that the ship-owner furnished the stevetrue. dore with tarpaulin, or any other means; for protecting the bacon from the leakage of t4e molasses, which he knew was most, liable to arise. It is not proved to be, nor do I understand it to be, a part of a stevedore's contraot. to furnish slloh proteotion from mO,lasses as the stowage of the baoon required. The ship's owner knew where the molasses must go, and it was incumbent on him. if he desired tarpaulins or other ext!;ap.rdinarypreventives used, to furnish the same to the stevedore. "Nor can responsibility" to the Ship-owner for the result of the owner's failure to provide tal'paulins, or the like, result from the stevedore's omission to askfor tarpaulins. Extraordinary protection it was as well known to the ship-owner as to the was necessary.. stevedore. Itwaa therefore the duty of the ship-owner to provide the stevedore with the means of protection to the bacon. if extraordinary protection was desired. My conclusion. therefore, is that the recover of the stevedore the money he was compelled to' pay tPEl owner of the bacon for the damage the baoon received from molasses during the voyage of importation. The libel is, dismissed, with costs.
v. THE CEPHALONIA. SPARKS V.SAME. EASEMAN V. SAlIfE. v. CUNARD STEAM-SHIP Co. GREEN V. SAME.
(lJiBtriet Oourt. liJ. D. New York. July 9, 1886.)
COLLISION-STEAMER AND TuG-OVERTAKING VESSEL-Loss OF LIFE AND PROPERTy-LIABILITY.
The tug Glen Island, while, proceeding down the bay of New York, was overtaken and run down by the steam-ship Cephalonia. of the Cunard line. The tug was sunk. and several lives were lost. Prior to the collision the tug did not alter her course. On suit brought against the steam-ship to recover for the loss of life and property, held, that the Cephalonia, as the overtaking
JReported py R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.