her c09rse.':!t was no part ,of her duty to get out of the way of the steamet nipproached the tug frqtrl behind, the tug held her course, she discharged all her duty; and that was what she did. While in performance of that duty, she was run over and Bunk by the steamer. No doubt'Clin be entertained as to the liability of the for the damages .that resulted. Decrees must therefore be entered in the several cases in favor of the libelants, with an order' of reference to ascertain damages.
(DiBtrict (Jourt. E. D. NeuJ York.
OAItRIERlJ-..,.()J' GOODS..- SHIPS ..- STowAGEl - OPBNING BALBB FOR PURPOSEIS OF STOWAGB:-:OONBEQUENT REDUCTION IN VALUE-LIA13ILITY.
Oertain bales of cork-wpod were shipped in good order,on board of the bark AugUsto. While on board, some of the bales were opened, apparently for of stowage. In rebaling, woods of different si:z;es and quality were so mixed ssto reduce their market value. The consignee refused to give 8 receipt for the same in good order, whereupon the ship·owner sold the goods. On snit brought by the consignee to recover the sound value of the goods, less the freight on the whole shipment, held, that libelant should recover that value.
In Admiralty. Hill, Wing it Shoudy, for libelants. Ullo, Ruebsamen cf Hubbe,for claimants.
BENEDICT,J. Certain bales of cork-wood and cork were shipped in good ()rdet()n the bark Augusto. While On board ship 62 bales were opened by cutting or otherwise, apparently for the sake of stowage. In rebaling these 62, woods of different sizes and qualitywere so mixed as to cause a serious reduction in the market value of the goods so mixed. The ship refused to deliver these 62 bales except upon receiving a receipt for the same in good order. The consignees refused to give such It receipt, and thereupon the ship-owner sold the goods. The consignee now, by this action, seeks to recover the sound value of these 62 bales, less the freight on the whole shipment. The Eihip rests her defense upon the fact proved that, subsequent to the origitlal demand of a receipt in good order, she offered to deliver these.. bales, subjeott() the ship's lien for freight. In reply. the libelants olaim that, upon sending the reoehringelerk, O'Brien. to theahip for goods, in accordance with the offerto deliver sube
Reported liyR(D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., oftha New York'bar.
THE WIER"'. THE PADRE.
ject to the ship's lien for freight, the goods were again refused, unless a receipt in good order wRIFgiv'en. The evidence is not as clear as it might be as to the time of O'Brien's demand, but I think the testi. mony justifies the opinion that the visit of O'Brien to the ship was in consequenee of the offer to deliver the goods, and, if so, it was of course subsequent to the offer. The testimony of O'Brien shows, therefore, that the offer-to deliver was not adhered to; and, as the condition of the goods did not justify the ship in asking for a receipt in good order, a breach of the contract is proved. There to · be no doubt as to the value of the goods itt the 62 bales, and that value is the measure of the libelants' damages resulting from the breach. The libelant must recover that value, viz., $1,368.20, less, of course, the freight on the whole shipment, which was $379.49. Let a. been,t(;lred in favor of the libelant for $988.49, with interest from August 19, 1881. '
a01J'1't, li. D. P&n1l811l'Dania.'
OoLLl'810N..:...VlllS8EL NOT AT ANCHOR-STORM.
to see that a vessel. is securely fastened .when a storm arisee will render ,her responsible in _ damages if, during the storm, the vessel break! loose; and collides with another;
In Admiralty· Henry R.Bdmund8, for libelant. Oharle8Gibbon8, Jt'., for respondent.
BUTLER, J. It seems quite cleadhat the respondent is liable. Con. ceding that the bark was fastened with sufficient security for fail' weather, it certainly was not for the tempestuous weather which pre. vailed for many hours before the accident. ·The respondent's duty required him to :see to the fastenings when the storm arose. The post to which ,the chain was attached was rotten, and insufficient to resist any"strain, while the bowline was weak, and easily parted. These fastenings;I-think, oonld:scarcely be regarded. as secure, even in-or. dinary wea.ther. A decree must be enterecl for .the libelant acoordingly.
·· of the
SYLVAN GROVE.l THE DR. J. P. WITBEOK. TaE SYLVAN GROVE and another·
. (Di8triet Oourt, E. D. New York. July 16, 1886.)
Libelant's small boat, which was being towed astern oftha tugW., was run . down by the steamer S., which wall on a course overtaking tIle tug.. Libelant's ar.m was thereby broken, and liis boat damaged, for which injuries he brought suit against both the stl)am-boat and the that the steamer, · being the overtaking vessel, was bound to have kept out of the way, and was in consequence solely liable fotthecollision. 8. SAME..:..FALBE TEBTIMONy-ALLOWA:NCE FOR INJURY TO PBopE1tTy-FOR IN.JUR;YTQPERSON.. 1.COM,I8ION-StEAM-BoAT AND SMALL BOAT AsTERN OF TUG-OVERTAKING VESSEL-LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY.
Libelant swore falsely that his boat was wholly destroyed: Held, that nothing should be allowed for the injury to property. Held;! alMo, ·that he should recover $500 for the breaking of his arm.
. . . . ....
In Admiralty. . .. Thomas D. Cottman and Biddle it Wm'd, for libelant. A. P. it W. Man, for the Sylvan Grove. Benedict, Taft et Eenedict, for'the Dr. J.P. Witbeck. BENEDIOT,J.. It is plain enough that,. the libelant cannot recover against the Dr. J. P. Witbeck, at whose stern he was towing in his boat. It is equally plain that he can recover against the Sylvan ,Grove. Th'eSylvan Grove was overtaking the Witbeck, and the Witbeck, with the libelant's hoat ·astern. was in plain sight. The duty of the Sylvan Grove was to avoid collision with the libelant's boat. If, as she contends, there was a change of course on the part of the Wit. beck, which brought her on a course crossing the course·of the Sylvan Grove, then it was the duty of the Sylvan Grove. to stop, on seeing such change, and, by porting her wheel, avoid running over the libelant in hIS boati·· If she wRs:ataproper distance from the Witbeck, there was no difficulty'in doing this. If, however, as is more probable, the Sylvan Grove approached so near to the Witbeck, holding her course, 'that a. shift of the Witbeck's wheel, made to allow the Sylvltn Grove to pass ber to port, threw the Witbeck's stern a little off shore, and thereby pulled the libelant a little off shore, and under the paddleWheel of .the Grove, then the Hylvan Grove .witS in fault forapproaobing:sonear theWitbeck. Tbe libel must therefore be dismissed as to the Witbeck, with costs, and the libelant must recover his damages of the Sy;lvan ,Bie; badi one of his arms broken, and he swore falsely that his boat was wholly destroyed. I give him noth. ing for the injurJ··to his·pr6perty.,' ,Forbis brokenarmiI give him $500. Let a decree be entered for the libelant against the Sylvan Grove for $500, and costs.
Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., oithe New York bar.