PATURZO'l1. COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE.
1869, and each year they 'made and sold several machines. After the farm was sold, the patentee appearsto have had sufficient means to su P7 port himself and family while obtaining a medical education. If he Was' able to do all this; he was: certainly able to a patent .solicitor, and pay the necessary fees at the patent-office. And, besides this, his father was able to hitveassisted him, and the record does not show that he was unwilling to do so. ' Other questions were argued by counsel, but sufficient has been stated to show that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity.
PATURZO '11. CoMPAGNIE FRANdArslll,'
(District Oourt, 8. D. New :York. June 8, 1887.)
BJlIPPING-STOWAGE-NEGLIGENCE-MACARONI AND GREEN FRUIT.
Under the existing state of knowledge, it is a want of due care ot cargo for a vessel to stow macaroni and green fruit in the same compartment of the hold. ' . There is now no such general custom of stowing macaroni and green fruit together as to constitute a usage, exempting the ship from the consequences of damage arising therefrom in the existing state of knowledge.
SAME-CUSTOM-"BEATING CARGo"-EXISTING STATE OF KNOWLEDGE.
The steam-shipB. delivered in: the port of, New York certain macaroni and dewhich had been damaged during the voyage by the .fumes of caying green fruit, which had been stowed in the same compartment. The bills of lading excepted" damage from other goods by sweating or otherwise. " Held, that, though the exception covered this damage, the vessel was liable for her negligence in stowing the two articles in the same compartment.
In Admiralty. S. Davison, for libelant. Benedict, Taft &- Benedict, for claimanfa.
BROWN, J. in March, 1885, the steam-ship Britannia arrived in the port of New York, having on board 442 of macaroni, consigned to the libelant. .On delivery 126 boxes were found to be damaged, for which damage the above libelwas filed. The evidence shows that the macaroni was stowed in the same compartment with green fruit, though separated from it some 15 feet by other dry articles. During a part of the voyage the hatches had to be kept closed on account of heavy weather. The fruit became heated and decayed, and its fumes penetrated and injured the ma'caroni. The bill of lading excepted" damage from other goods by sweating or otherwise." I think the vessel would be exempted from liability under this clause, if sh\:l were not chargeable with any negligence or want of due care for the macaroni in stowing itin the same compartment with the green fruit. The claimant's witnesses testify that it is
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
customary for the vessels of their line to stow macaroni and green fruit in the same compartment. They state, however, and it is now a wellknown fact, that green fruit is specially a "heating cargo;" and, in case of any unexpected prolonga,tion of the voyage, or of bad weather, interfering with constant ventilation, there is great danger of such heating and decay of the green fruit as to injure any other cargo stowed with it, and susceptible, like macaroni, to its influence. Several of the libelant's witnesses show that stowing macaroni in the same compartment with green fruit is regarded as dangerous, and that, upon other lines running from the Mediterranean, such goods are not stowed in the same compartment. In my judgment, whatever the former practice may have been, when the carriage of green fruit was new, the liability of fruit to cause damage from heating, sweating, or decay, through. the contingencies of the voyage., had become so well known at the time of the shipment of this cargo, in 1885, that the stowing of macaroni in the same compartment with green fruit was not an exercise of that reasonable care fo-r the safety of the macaroni which was obligatory upon the vessel; that the practice of stowing them in the same compartment was not then so general as to constitute a usage to which the libelant's assent is to be presumed, so as to furnish a defense to the ship; and that the ship is consequently liable for improper stowage in not separating the two kinds of cargo in such a manner as the existing state of knowledge made obligatory. (]lark v. Barnwell,12 How. 272; Mainwaring v. The Carrie Delap, 1 Fed. Rep. 874; The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. Rep. 174, 177; The Titania, 19 Fed. Rep. 101. Decree for the libelant, with costs.
THE BOSKENNA BAy.l
:.Dislriot Court, B. D. New York. June 22, 1887.)
DAMAGE TO CARGO-FRl;rIT-EVIDENCE-FoREIGN VALUE.
In ascertaining the amount of damage sustained by a of fruit, the best method, in the absence of direct evidence, is by a comparison of the price brought by the damaged fruit at a fair sale, with the market value of sound fruit of the same brands, sold at the same time: or if that is not obtainable, then by a comparison of the price brought by the damaged goods with the _prICes brought within a week before or after by other brands of the same Invoice value at the place of export as the damaged fruit: or, next, proof of the value abroad would be competent, with additions for differences in market. The average values of all the fruit arriving about the time of the arrival of the damaged fruit, from the same port as the latter, is only a reasonable test as a last resort.
In Admiralty. On report of commissioner under order to compute damages. For decision on the merits see 22 Fed. Rep. 662.
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.