to the lighter,f'orwhich theowIiers of the Husted; must answer. Considering the unstable condition (If the lighter a.mid .the swells, although at least 20 minutes had elapsed after she had' taken the water aboard, and no further trouble had arillen while she was inthe Chapman's charge, in the conflict of evidence, I am not so clear that the dumping of the barrels was caused by the imprUdence of the Husted, or by want of steering, as to feel authorized to charge her with' the cost or picking up the barrels, or the loss of those that were not recovered. ·The suit for salvage must be dismissed, with costs. Any claim that the Husted might have been entitled to for pumping oiit, and for the time spent in towing her into the slip in place of the Chapman, I regard as fully offset by the injury and the loss to the owner of the lighter through the Husted's officious and unjustifiable interference with the duties of the Chapman; by the practical collusion by which the lighter was turned over to the Husted to make a job against the master's will; the Husted's subsequent groundJess claims forsalva,ge; and by the subsequent detention of the lighter from her owners. In the first aetitln the libelant is entitled to a decree for the damages to the lighter by running her bowsprit upon the wharf, with costs; and a reference to compute the damages, if not agreed on.
ARRECO tI. POPE
(District Oourt, B. D. 'N61JJ York. October 22, 1888.)
DEMURRAGE-DELAY IN LOADING-"WITHIN REACH OF THE SHIP'S TACKLEB"WAIVEIJ.
A charter-party allowed 18 days for loading. The was tendered five days after notice of the ship's readiness. Thirty days were occu'pied by the master in loading. The charter required delivery of the cargo "within reach of the ship's tackles. " .It was delivered a few yards beyond. without objection from the mas,er, and tne cargo was delivered to the ship as fast as the ship could load. One day after the tender of the cargo was occupied by the ship . in unloading her ballast. Held, that only five days' demurrage should be allowed to the ship, no evidence appearing that the cargo could not have beell loaded by the ship within 18 days, and delivery "within reach of the ship's tackles" having been waived.
In Admiralty. Libel for demurrage. Butler, Stillman Hl1.bbard, for libelant. Wilcox, Ada1ll8 Macklin, for respondents.
BROWN, J. Although the charter required the cargo to be landed "within reach of the ship's tackles," the evidence shows that the (',aptain accepted the delivery a few yards beyond, without objection; and after the 21st of February there was no delay in supplying the cargo, which was loaded by the master from the place where its delivery was accepted. Had it appeared that the cargo might with reasonable diligence have been loaded after that date within the 18 lay days allowed by the charter after
DISBROW 11. THE WALBH BROTHERS.
the ship was ready, to-:wit, February 15th, I think the libelants would not have been entitled to any demurrage; for the master accepted the deliv.. ery without objtlction, and· he was bound to load with reasonable dili· gence. All that was obligatory on the charterer in this regard was to furnish and deliver the cargo in time to admit of its being loaded with reasonable diligence within the 181ay days. But it is not shown that the cargo could with reasonable diligence have been loaded in 12 days after it was delivered to the ship. On the other hand, I am not at all satisfied upon the master's testimony that the cargo could not have been easily loaded within 18 days after the 21st; nor that the delivery of the cargo a few yards distant from the reach of the ship's tackles was in any degree the cause of his uee of 30 subsequent days in loading, instead of 18. It is not reasonabletb suppose any such additional time beyond the 18 days contemplated by the charter could have been required on account of so slight a difference in the spot of delivery. If the master was dissatisfied as to the point of delivery, he should have objected at the time. Not only did he not object, but he did not even present any bill for what expense was incurred, though it was small, for bringing the cargo within reach of the tackles. I allow the ship, therefore, the use of the 18 lay days from the time the cargo was delivered and accepted by the master, viz., on the 21st. The ship was ready, however, to receive the cargo on the 15th. Sufficient prior notice of her arrival and expected readiness was given, but the cargo was not furnished till the 21st. During one of the intervening days the loading was interrupted by the necessity of unload. ing the residue of her own cargo. I allow her, therefore, five days' demurrage at the charter rate of £11 sterling per day, amounting to 1275.35, with interest and costs.
(Diltr'Ut Court, 8. D. Ne'lJ)YO'I'k. October 22,1888.)
A barge without sails or rudder. used for transporting brick, on which men are employed in loading. carrying, and delivering brick, is subject to a lien for wages of the m,en employed in such traosportation as seamen.
BEAMEN-W4GES-HmtNG BY MONTH-DESERTION BEFORE TRIP ENDED.
Though the practice in this harbor upon hiring a seaman "by the month" in harbor navigation permits an employer to discharge, or the employed to leave, at the termination of any trip during the mooth on pro rata wages, neither can terminate the employment .in the midst of a trip without legal cause. The employed quit without leave, while the barge was dis· charging, the wages of that tnpheld, forfeited.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages. Alexander « Ash, for libelants. D. Benedict, for claimant.