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.
V. THE FRANK SYLVIA.
after the vessel reports arrival, within which. to send her to a berth where she can unload her cargo at once. This vessel had 232,000 feet., Three days were consumed before she was directed to her wharf at Harlem. Shyllrriyedthere some time on Saturday. Sunday and Labor Day (the MondaYJollqwing) intervened, both of which are holidays. She began the on a!1d finisheq. on Saturday, discharging at the. of 70,000 feet per day. Under the custom, which I think Hshed,. to allow three days to find a discharging berth, and the ing holidays, I cannot hold the respondent bound to commence the charge before Tuesday morning. The ves::lel was then in readiness; but the discharge was delayed till Wednesday, when it, should have begun on Tuesday. She is therefore entitled to demurrage for one day's , B01J)env. Decker, 18 Fed. Rep. 751; The Z. L. Adams, 26 Fed. Rep. q55; Paquette v. Cargo of Lumber, 23 FecI. Rep. .301. The respondents were the New York agents of the shippers, and the consignees and holders of the bill of lading; and after an'ival they sold the cargo; and directed its delivery. They were interested in it to the exten,t oftheir commissions on the sale, and were the persons who were to pay t,he freight, and who, in fact offered to pay it, without rage. Such a consignee, receiving and disposing of the cargo, is liable Jor both freight and demurrage. Irzo v. Perkina, 10 Fed. ,Rep. 779; Neil8enV; Je8tIip, 30 Fed. Rep. 138; Reedv. Weid,G Fed. Rep. 304; Sprague v. West. Abb. Adm. 548. The libelant is entitled to a decree for $556.37 freight, and $25, the stipulated rate of demurrage for one day, with interest and costs.
UNITED STATES 11. THE FRANK SYLVIA.
(Diltn,,' Oourt. N. D. Oalifornia. December 24. 1888.)
BmpPINQ-CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS ON FREIGHT·BoAT.
A libel against a vessel for a violation of law alleged to have been committed in using or navigating a freight·boat for the carrying of passengers without having been inspected as a passenger steamer, and obtaining a certificate-specifying the number of passengers she can carry with prudence and safety, is not properly brought under Rev. St. U. S. § 4465, which forbids the taking on board of any steamer a If,reater number of passengers than is "stated in the certificate of inspection. · . Nor under section 4466, which provides for special permits to be Issued to steamers" engaged in excursions, allowing them to take on board an additIOnal number of passengers over and above the number specified in the certificate.
But is properly brought under section 4499, which subj ects to a penalty all steamers "navigated without complying with t,he terms of this title."
In Admiralty. On exceptions to libel filed against the steamer Frank Sylvia, a freight-boat, for carrying passengers contrary to law.