FEDERAL' R:EPORTERj vol. 39.
for demurr-agein'personam orin rem. -Bradstreet v. Hetan, 2 Blatchf. 116; 112 Sticks of Timber, 8 Ben. 214; The Querini Stamphalia, 19 Fed. Rep. 123; Leduc v. Ward, L. R. 20 Q. B. Div. 479, 483. It is not just that the indorsee should be held to the terms of a charter of which he has no nothe charferer, the charter would no doubt tice. As between the ship control. The Chadwicke, 29 Fed. Rep. 521. Justice requires that the master of the ship, when he signs bills of lading presented by the charterer, making the goods deliverable to order, should insert either the charter rates of demurrage, or Some clause adopting the charter's provisions, as in the other bills of lading in this case, if he would enforce, as against bona fide iudorsees, the rates contracted by the charter. There is the more reason for this rule in the present case, because the demurrage arose upon an additional special contract made between the master and the indorsee that the vessel should go to the Erie basin to deliver his consignment after the rest of the goods were discharged. The new contract was doubtless subject to the general terms of the bill of lading, but it is irrational to conclude that it was made with any reference to the high rates of demurrage qamed in the charter, of which the indorsee had no knowledge. The charter rates were no part of the contract, either in fact or by legal implication. I allow, therefore, demurrage at the rate of $40 per day, the value of the use of the vessel, for nine days, with i11terest. SERVISS v. THE CHATTAHOOCHEE.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York.
OF VESSEL-NEGLIGENCE OF Sl'EVEDORE.
A stevedore, wbo bad finished loading coal on a steam-ship froYi'L a canal- boat along-side, took the cand-boat's line to a steam winch on the steamer to draw the canal-boat astern of the steamer. The latter's propeller was in motion, and the stevedore gave no orders to have it stopped, nor did he direct the men on the canal boat to keep her away by poles. The propeller drew in the canal-boat, cut a hole in h-er, and sank her The stevedore was an employe of the steamer. Held, that when the stevedore undertook to move the canal-boat up the slip he assumed the reponsibility of her navigation, at least until she was fully clear of the steamer's side, and for his negligence the steamer was liable. Affirming 37 Fed. Rep. 153.
InAdmiralty. On appeaIfrom the district court,37 Fed. Rep. 153. Libel by Deborah A. Serviss against the steam-ship Chattahoochee, for damages by sinking libelant's canal-boat. From a decree in favor of libelant, with an order 'of reference to ascertain the amount of damage, claimant appeals. Rice & Bijur, for appellant. Hyland & Zabriskie, for appellee. Justice. -I conour in the views of the district court in regard to this case. 37 Fed. Rep. 153. Let a decree be entered for the libelant for $581.22, with interest from June 12, 1888, and for the costs of the district court, taxed at $103, and for the costs of this court, to be taxed.
, UNlTEDBTATES V. TOZER.
UNITED STATES V. TOZER.
(District Court, E. D. Missouri, N. D. June 1, 1889.)
CARRIERS-INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT-CONTEMPORANEOlIS SERVICES.
To carry two barrels of sugar for one person on a given date, and to carry one barrel of sugar for another person. between the same points, over the same route, two dan later, are contemporaneous, and like services within the meaning of section' 2 of the interstate commerce act.
IN QUANTI'l'Y OF PATRONAGE.
The fact that defendant's road received much more traffic from the first shipper than from the second does not make the circumstances and conditions under which the two services were rendered substantially dissimilar.
SAME-LoCAL AND THROUGH RATES.
Defendant's company received from a connecting carrier at Hannibal, Mo., under an alleged traffic arrangement, two barrels of sugar shipped by the latter company from Chicago, and carried it to Hepler, Kan., for 34 cents per cwt., ,that being defendant's company's proportion of a rate of 51 cents per cwt. from Chicago to Hepler. About the same time it charged a local shipper at Hannibal 46 cents per cwt. for carrying a barrel of sugar from there to Hepler. Held, that on these facts the two services were rendered under substantially dissimilar circumstances and conditions, Whether the difference of 12 cents per cwt. between defendant's company's local rate from Hannibal to Hepler and its proportion of the through rate froUl Chicago was an undue and unreasonable preference or advantage over the local shipper, within the meaning of section 3 of the interstate commerce act, was a question for the jury.
Indictment against George K. Tozer for Violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. Geo. D. Reynolds, U. S. Atty., (T. P. Bashaw and C. C. Allen, of counsel,) for the United States. 'l'hos. J. Port·is and W. A. Martin, for defendant. THAYER, J., (charging jury.) Section 2 of the interstate commerce act reads as follows: "If any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, shall directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, * * * or other device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered * * * in the transportation of passengel's or property subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons, for doing for him oe them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby declared to be unlawful." The first count of the indictment is framed under section 2, and charges in substance that defendant, as agent of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company; collected and received of the Hayward Grocery Company for the transportation of sugar from Hannibal, Mo., to Hepler, Kan., more than he charged the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company fora like and contemporaneous service rendered under similar circumstances and conditions. In arriving at a verdict on this count you must v.o9F.no.7-24