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
that on one of the days on which the respondents refused to receive brimstone on account of the wind the witness continued discharging all day. He says, however, that he did not himself pretend to judge of the force of the wind, and all he can say is that his consignee allowed him to continue discharging. . It appears, moreover, that his vessel lay in a position more sheltered from the wind, being on the north side of the harbor, and the wind being from the north on that day. From his testimony it appears, also, that he was 15 days discharging 550 tons of brimstone, which is a less average than was accomplished by libellant's vessel, which was 20 days, 'in all, discharging over 900 to:Js. The United States signal service report was put in evidence by the libellants to show that it was as windy on the days when the greatest number of tons were discharged as on those when the discharging was stopped, but as those reports give only the highest velocity during the 24 hours, they do not show tile velocity during the working hours of the day. The report does show that it was what is considered windy weather, and that on the days when the discharging was proceeded with the wind was from the south, and on the days when the was suspended the wind was from the north. At Locust Point the vessel would be sheltered from a south wind and exposed to the north winds. Upon consideration of the testimony, and of all the circumstances attending the discharging of the cargo, I do not find that the vessel did not have customary dispatch, and the libel must be dismissed.
NOTE.-See The M. B. Bacon v. Tlte
Western Transportation 00.
BEINECKB V. STEAMSHIP SECRET.
THE STEAMSHIP SECRET.
(District Court, S. D. New York. July 28, 1880.) 1. SUPPLIEs-LIENs.-Held, ul)der the circumstances of t.hese cases, thaI the libellants had no liens for supplies furnished a foreign veaae]
W. R. Beebe, for libellants. W. Mynd£'rse, for claimant. CHOATE, D. J. These are suits for supplies against a foreign vessel. She was owned by a foreign corporation, which, however, had an office and transacted business in the city of New York, and was in good credit here. At the time the supplies were furnished she was under charter to Murray. Ferris & Co., a firm of commission merchants in this city, all resident here. By the terms of the charter Murray, Ferris & Co/were to furnish all her supplies. The supplies furnished by Beinecke were fresh meats, delivered in New York to Murray, Ferris & Co., at a stea;m-boat pier, on the understanding that they were to be shipped by steamer to Jacksonville, Florida, between which port and certain foreign ports the steam-ship was then running, as one of a. regular line controlled by Murray, Ferris & Co. The meats were packed in ice boxes, on the pier in New York, under the direction of libellant, and bills of lading for them, with other goods shipped, were taken by, and in the name of, Murray, Ferris & Co, The libellant charged the goods on his books to Murray, Ferris & Co. The transactions were generally once a. week, and continued from the tenth of January. 1879, to the fourth of April, 1879. The bills up to and including the fourteenth of March were made out against Murray, Ferris & Co., and were rendered after each transaction. Those of the eighth and fourteenth of March were altered in the heading by striking out the names "Murray, Ferris & Co.," and inserting "S. S. Secret." This was done at the office of Murray, Ferris & Co·· and for their convenience in keeping their accounts. The four bills