SERVISS "'. THE CHATTAHOOCHEE.'
(DiBtrict Court, E. D. New York. November 30,1888.)
SUIJ'PING-LIABILITY OF VESSEL-NEGLIGENCE OF STEVEDORE.
In Admiralty. Libel by Deborah A. Serviss against the steam·ship Chattahoochee, for damages in sinking libelant's canal-boat. Hyland & Zabriskie, for libelant. Rice & Bijur, for claimant. BENEDICT, J. The libelant's canal-boat, having on board coal for the steamer Chattahoochee, was along-side that steamer as she lay in the slip, ahout to sail, and delivered coal.into her tubs until she was sQpplied. The canal-hoat lay stern out. her bow being about 100 feet forward of the steamer's stern. The stevedore of the steamer Chattahoochel'l, as soon as he had taken from the canal-boat all the coal required, took down his hoisting app,aratus. and, notifying the master of the canal-boat thathe was going to haul the boat up the slip, cast off the lines to thecanalboat, and carried the canal-boat's bow line aft to a steam-winch on the steamer's deck, aft, .and ,there, by starting, the steam-wi nch, put the canalboat in motion towards the bulk-head. At the time the canal-boltt was thus put in motion towards the stern of the steamer, the propeller ,of the steamer was revolving. When the canal-boat, under the impetus given her by ,the steam-winch, reached the steamer's stern, ,the action ·of the steamer's propeller drew her onto the revolving blades, by which,she was cut open and sunk. The question to be decided is whether the steamer is liable· for the sinking of the canal-boat. The stevedore was an employe of the,steamer, and as such it was part of his duty to move the canal-boat away from the steamer's side as soon as the steamer was supplied with coal. He undertook to haul the canal-boat up the slip by starting her towards the bulkhead, using the power of the steam-winch for that purpose. There is evidence that the boat could have passed the revolving propeller in safety if poles had been used by those on board of her to bear her from the propeller in passing. In this .instance no poles were used, and in consequence the boat was sucked in by the propeller, and sunk in the manner stated. The eontention on the part of the claimant is that it: was the duty of the master of the canal-boat to observe that his boat was ap1
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq" of the New YOJ,'k bar.
proaching the revolving blade and to keep her off the screw as she passed, and that the failure of the master to,discharge this duty was the cause of the damage, that ensued. But I incline to the opinion that when the stevedore undertook to move the canal-boat up the slip, he assumed the responsibility Qfher navigation, if not until she reached the bulk-head, at least until she was fully of the steamer's side. It was therefore, in my opinion, his duty, before starting the canal-boat, to stop the steamer'sscrew, or,by giving prop'er directions to the men on the canal-boat, insure her being kept off the propeller when she passed it. He did neither ofthese things, 'and this omission, in my opinion, rendered the steamer liable /0J; the, damages tqlltensueq., Let a decree be entered in favor of the libelant, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount, of the, damage.
GATES t1. RYANet
(District Court, 8. D. New York. December 18, 1888.)
Tb;ere is ,nQ well-,established rulei,n the port of New Y()rk as to the discharge ofeastern lumger. By the cus'tom of the port three "idle days" are allowed the consignee after the vessel'reports arrival within which to send her to, a berth. Hllnce,:where a lumber scho.oner from Nova Scotia arrive,d on Wednesday. was sent to a wharf on Saturday, and began her discharge Gn the following Wednesday, Sunday and Labor Day (first Monday in September) inter· venlng, held, that she was entitled to one day's demurrage. The, consignee of carA'o and holder of the bill of lading, though but an agent to sell, is liable for both freight and demurrage. '
In Admiralty. 'Action forifreight and demurrage.
BROWN, J. ,There is no dispute about the amount of freight due, all the defendant's alleged offsets. namely, $558.37, after The defendant offered to pay freight, but retused to pay any demurrage. In the offer of payment, however, a receipt in full of all claims was demanded, which the defendant had no right to require. There has been no payment offreight into court. The charter provided for discharge with customary dispatch. The vesselwas loaded with lumber from New Brunswick, N. S. There is no 1Jerfectly established rule as respects the rate of discharge of eastern, lumber. Several large dealers testified that a discharge of 30,000 feet: per day, board' measure, had long been considered a reasonable rate of discharge. On the other hand, there is evidence that indicates that that ought to be considered ap unreasonably slow rate of tlie vessel is ready to begin; from 40,000 to 70,000 feet being a quite eommonrate of discharge per day. " Three days are allowed by custom,
JReported by Edw81'd G.Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.