:PAB:r- Q110ABGO OF BRIMSTONB.
reqmred by the laws ofbis: e.onntry for the suppo,rt of his men. For this cause they are declared entitled to their discharge, and to be paid the balance of· their wages due to at the time they left the ship. It is further claimed in the libel that they are entitled to recover damages for having been put upon 'Bhort allowance. The master having broken his contract with the libellants, an<l they having been injnred thereby, they should be indem. nified. In such cases seamen have always received some compensation, and an allowance of one month's extra pay is for this cause decreed to each of the libellants.
PART OF CARGO OF BRIMSTONE.
Court, D. Maryland.
September 14, 1880.)
CUSTOM OF PORT-UNLOADING OARGO-BRIMSTONE.-The custom of a port to stop discharging cargoes of brimstone when there is a high wind, is not unreasonable.
S. EVIDENCE-CUSTOMARY DISPATCH.-A charter provided" for prompt loading, without loss of time, weather permitting, and cllstomary lay days for diseharging." Held, under all the circumstances attending the diseh'trge of the cargo, that the vessel had customary dispatch, and II libeUor demurrage should be dismissed. .
In Admiralty. Libel for Demurrage. Brown et Smith, for libellant. C. N. West, for respondents. MORRIS, D. J. The Italian bark Geromina Madre brGught to the port of Baltimore a cargo of over 900 tons of brimstone. She arrived April 24, 1880, commenced discharging on. the 27th, and finished May 18th. This libel is filed by the master of the bark, alleging that he was detained in, all
21 days, when ten days would have been sufficient, with reasonable dispatch, to have discharged the cargo; and that the detention arose from the fault of the consignees and char· terers, for which he should be paid demurrage. The charter-party provides that "the cargo is to be brought
along-side the vessel and taken away at the expense and risk of the charterers, according to the use and custom of the place of loading and discharging j" and also provides ''for prompt lO(td. ing, without loss of time, weather permitting, and customary lay days for discharging."
There being no definite number of days stipulated within which the cargo was to be discharged, and it being provided that the charterers were to be entitled to customary lay days, and there being no custom establishing any definite number of days, or rate per day, for discharging, the charterers have performed their obligations, unless detention has ensued from some fault of theirs, or neglect on their part to exercise reasonable diligence, according to the custom of the port. Under such a charter-party the owner of the vessel takes the risk of the weather being suitable, according to the custom of the port, for unloading the cargo, and the charterer takes the risk of being able to provide the proper transportation from the ship's side. Sprague v. West, 1 Abb. Ad. 548. The proofs show that the vessel was ordered to a dock at the Canton wharves, and that there was some delay in· getting her to that place, but to this I find that the master con· sented for the reason that he was saved wharfage. I find that while at the Canton wharf the discharging went on with customary dispatch, and that there was no delay chargeable to the respondents. The proof shows that scows were in readiness to take the portion of the cargo to be discharged into them, and that there was no waiting for them; on the contrary, it would rather appear that the scow men complained that the crew of the bark worked too slowly, and did not give them the brimstone as fast as regular stGvedores usually do. r find, also, that the removal of the vessel from the Canton wharf across the harbor,to Locust Point, was by agreement with +,he master.
DERTELLOTE 'V. PART OF CARGO OF BRIMSTONE.
It was at Locust Point that the principal detention took place. The libellant alleges that it resulted in great part
from the want of a sufficient number of carts, and the can· stant delays in waiting for them. On this point there is some contradiction of testimony, but I think the preponderance is in favor of the respondents. The principal loss of time arose from the consignee refusing on parts of two days to receive the brimstone, alleging that the weather was too windy, and that so much of the brimstone was blown away in dumping it from tho ship into the carts that he was subjected to loss. A further delay was in consequence of disputes, on two days, with the master, with regard to the payment of freight, result· ing in his forbidding the discharging to continue until he was paid. Deducting the time lost from these two causes, and the average result per day does not tend to sustain the aIle. gations with regard to the want of carts, contradicted as they are very positively by several intelligent witnesses. The respondents have proved that it is the custom of this port to stop discharging cargoes of brimstone when there is a high wind, as it is a substance liable to be blown away in the handling necessary to unladen it from a ship. In a charter such as the one in this case the owner of the vessel is bound by the custo'ms of the port to which he con· tracts to carry the cargo. This custom is proved, and it, seems to me not an unreasonable one, although, undoubtedly, it is one likely to lead to disputes and possibly to abuse. The 103s entailed on the consignee, which would justify the sus· pension of the unlading, should not be So trifling one, but should be in some commensurato with the usual loss from detention to which the vessels ordinarily bringing such cargoes to the port would be subjected. With regard to the violence of the wind on those days when the discharging was suspended, there is some conflict of testimony, but the testi· mony on behalf of the respondents is positive, while that of the master of the vessel is not convincing. The libellant, to corroborate his statement, produced the master of another Italian vessel,.hich was discharging brimstone on the opposite side of the harbor at the same time, and proved by him