et al. v.· THE
(Diatf1ict (Jourt. 8. D. N(J'IJl York.
April 28. l8SS.)
Two drums of glycerine in a consignment of 102 on board the steam-ship Britannia, were cut by chafing together during the voyage, whereby the glycerine leaked out. It appeared that the dunnage wood wllich was placed betwee.n all the drums of the. consignment, had fallen out during the voyage from between these two drums only. :The voyage had been a rough one. The damage :was within the exceptions of the bill of lading. Held, that the only fair inference wall that the wood qetween these drums was not secured in the usual and proper manner, andihat the loss was therefore the result of negli· gence in stowage, for which the ·steam-ship was liable, notwithstanding the exceptions of the bill of h.,ding.·. . .
Oeo. A. BkLck, for libelants. R. D, Benedict, for claimant.
Libel for damages.
BROWN, J. In Decernber,1885jtbeBritanniadeHvered in New York 102 drums of glycerine, consigned from Marseilles on the libelants' aC·oount; Two of the drums were so' injured on the piissage that the glycerine was lost to thev'alue of $l'fSr the rest of the drums were uninjured. The bill of lading excepted loSs from "leakage" or "pressure of other cargo."· ·Drums of glycerine are 'Peculiar in construction, and reqnireto be specially stowed with boa.rdsor ·planks between the drums. The testimony oitha'mate, given two months after the arrival of the steam-ship, shows that these two drums were in the lower hold; the one being on the top bfthe other; nndthaf pieces of wood, which in the stowing had ·been 'plaoedbetween them to keep them properly secured and apart,had dropped out, the ship having met tough weather on the passage.. The of the master, taken two years afterwards, as respects the disarrangement of the wood,is, I think, lessrelitlble. The matesta.tes 'positively that the wood fasteniligs:ror these two drums were all that had ,got (lUtofplace, and there isprdof of general good $towage. As the loss -arose froni "leakage," whichisione,of the exceptions of the bill of lading', the burdenof proof, in ordal' to' charge the ship, is upon the libelants ·t-o shoW' that there was some n'egligence on the part of the vessel that prO· duced the leakage.· Themttte's testimony shows the cause to have been lthe'dropping out of the wootUhatseparated these two drums, which'althe drums to ponna'dr each other. Had there been a 'ietiera} disarrangement of·the1vood, or had it:droppedaway between other rdrums, the proof of snch facte,'together with the .proOf of general good stowage, might have warranted the infel'ence that the tliaarrangement and dropping out of the wood was caused solely by the severe weather, a peril of the sea, which is also within the exceptions of the bill of lading; a.nd not by any defect in securing the wood of these two packages. But the
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
TJlE ,JOHN _ COTTB.ELL.
mate's testimony that on arrival the wood had not dropped away from any others except the two injured, will not permit the inference that it arose from rough weather alone; since in, that case the wood' between other drums would have been similarly affected.. The only fair inference of fact is that the wood between these two drums was Dot secured uaual and proper manner,and that negligence in this respect was the cause of the wood's dropping out, and thereby of the leakage which caused the loss. The Bnrgnndia, 29- Fed. Rep. 607; The Surrey, Id. 608, and note. In The Polynesia, 30 Fed. Rep. 210, there were no special circumstances indicating negligence on the part of the ship. The libelant is therefore entitled to a decree for the amount claimed, with interest and costs.
THE JOHN COTTRELL. THE STARI,IGHT. LAVERTY
THE JOHN COTTRELL and THE STARLIGHT.
D. New ;York. April 21, 1888.)
SHIPPING-CARRIAGE OF GOODs'-LIABILITY FOR Loss.
Thalighter J. C., with a of iron bars, moored outside of -another vessel,lying at·e. wharf. As the,Jide went down, she took the bottom. or S,OII\C obstruction,. gradually careened. and lost her deck-load overboard. She selected the mooring place herself, which was an improper one, and was left without a watchman. Held. that she was responsible for the loss of the iron.
On being libeled in this suit, the lighter brought in under the fifty-ninth adII\iralty rule the barge S., which was the vessel along-side of which she had moored. claiming that the barge, being moored unskillfully, had careened agaiust her, for.ced down her rail. and thus caused the loss of the deck-load. Held th\tt,' even had the accident occurred in this way, the barge S. was not liable, as she owed no duty to the lighter, which had moored along-side of her own volition, without request or permission, and at her owu risk. Being brought into the suit by petition of the lighter C., Mld, that the barge should recover her costs of the C., and' not .of the libelant.
. . . . .',
2. COLLISION--'--AT PIER-C08TS"';'FxFTy-NINTH RULE.
In Admiralty. Hyland Zabriskie, for libelant. Edwin G. for the John Cottrell. Goodrich, Deady &; Goodrich, for the barge. BROWN, J. In July, 1887, the libelant contracted with the owner's
to transport for them a quantity of iron bars from the Pennsylvania'Rail-
road, Jersey City, to Cornell's yrharf, foot of Twenty-Sixth street, North river. The libelant thereupon made 1\ subcontract with the captain of the lighter ohn .Cottrell to' transport the iron. . The cargo was loaded and taKen to. the basin in: which Cornell's wharf is located, where the
Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.