FEllERALREPORTEB "vol,; 41·.
i". A CARGO OF LmJ:BER.
(DUtrict COurt, E. D. New York: March 28, 1890.) "',. . , ,
DBHURRA.GB-LI,UllLITY 01' Col!tSlGNBB-Tnm 01' D18QJUltGE-Q.tl8TOftl
Where itwas proved to be a custom of tbe port of New-Yorli: forv6ssels to bediscbargedin tbe.order of their arrival at tbe wharf of the¢onsignee,'held, tbata vessel which'arrt"ll-d after otb,er vessels, and was discharged I,n, her turn, could notrecover demJ1$ge for the time lost in awaiting her turn. ,
In Admiraltr. Action by the 'master of' the brig George' E. against a cargo lately on board that vessel, to reCOver demurrage. The bill of ladihg under which the lumber was transported contained no provision as to time of discharge, or far "dispatch." Goodrich,Deltdy & GOodrich; fOI'libelant. D. Benedict,' forclaiul1int.
BltNEDlcT,J.' This isan action fordEimumge. The pl8,ined'Johvas delay the'schooner George E. Dale. The cargo was lumber. The cl)nsignee'splace of discharge was a pier where there was a space of some' 250 'feet. When the George E. Dale' arrived at this place of discharge, sbe found 'the schooner Emerson' there before her. The then' discharging at the pier. After the Eltie discharged the l\1mersori:was giyen .the i berth, and then the Dale was given,the berth lmu .di!5cnarged. Tbeposition of the libelant. is that m(nD, for two ,vessels to lie at the pier and be discharged at same 'Um,e, and that .it·, was the d\lty of the consignee, therefore, to discharge two vessels at the :game time,: instead of keeping the Dale waiting the Emerson ,The proof is not yerysatisfa(}o tory to. show that tWQ could bb properly discharged at the same time' at this place, but,however that may be, the 'proofis that ,by the of port in .,to diScharging of lUInber the IS not requIted to be chschllrge and take care of tvvo cargoes oflumber atthesame'tinie;' The shown by 'the prooftJ is that where sevel'al vess.els come to the, samEl, consignee, the consignee dis· charges 'them in tum; 'that is, one after 'theother, in the order of their ai'rival. This ctistom We this case when he dis· charged the Dale in 'her'tUrn after the Emerson. Under the eus· tom proved it was rio ,'failhre Of his duty to decline to undertake 'of the Dale' bef6i'e!the disciharging of the ,Emerson. was' con· elUded, even if the (act'wll's' that.. tHere was room at the pier for both to be dischargedaftlie same time. , The libel must be dismissed, with costS. I,' .' . " "
Reported by EdwardG..
ksq., of 'the New Yora
CITY OF SAVANNAB.
TIlE CITY 011' SAYANNAB. I
C:DIfbrlct OOurt, S. D. New York. March 28, 18111).)
1. CoL'tiSIPN-FAILtlBB TO SHOW LIGHTS-MUTUAL FA.ULT.
Though; in a ease of collision by night, the vessel failing to sbow the statutory light8\1lust be held in that does not relieveth' other vessel, if, under the same circumstances! she would bave been held liable .&lre the introduction of the lam requiring ' . '
SAME-FLASH-LIGHT-OVEBTAltING VESSEL-'NEGLIGENT LOOKOUT.
The, schoQner L,' was coming up the Atialltic coast, the port 01 New York, ;heading nearly (or the Scotland light-ship. 'The night was overcast and dark, but tbe was clear. A steamer's lights were seen of them by t110se on.thesailing vessel several. minu1jes before the collision wbich ensued between the twove8sel/1'. No tOrch was shown br the sailing vessel, and she was not seen by UIltU the latter was withlU a few feet of her. Held, tbat both vessEll. were in. fault for the collision,-the schooner, for not exhibiting a torch; the steamer, for not sooner obs6rvingthe sailing vessel.
·InAdmiralty. Action for damage by collision. , Good1"i.ch, Deady Goodtich, for libelants. H()CUll'iH' Lauterbach Johnscm, for claimants. BltOWN, .T. On the night of March 30,1889, about $ix miles south-ea.$t of the Highland lights, the libelants'three-masted schooner L. A. Lewis, eoming:up the coast, was overtaken and rnn into', by the steamer City of Savanfiah, and badly damaged. The night was overcast and dark, but thelttl1losphere was clear, with the wind about W. N. W. Both were heading'nearly for the Scotland lightship,-the City of Savannah directly for it; the SChooner, with her booms to starboard, keeping the light just a little on her port bow. The schooner was therefore slightly crossing to starboard the line of the steamer's course. The steamer's stem struck the stem of the schooner about 20 incpes on the port side of the rudder, and' carried away the schooner's stern quarter. The schooner showed no stem or flash light, and she was not seen by the steamer until tile latter was within a few feet of her. Collision occurred at the moment when the order to stop was given. The libel alleges that the steamer, when first seen, showed her red light only, a little on the schooner's starboard quarter; that the steamer afterwards changed her course so as to show both colored lights, whereupon the master went to the cabill to get a torch.light; but that, before it could bEl procured and shown, collision occurred.· The master was drowned. The evidence is not sufficient to establish any change of course by the The weight of· proof, in that respect, is with the claimants, that there was no change. .' If only the steamer's red light was first visible, the two colored lighUl afterwards came in view, probably, .because the schooner was slightly crossing the line of the steamer's course to star';' board, and by reason leeway ill the strong north-'!Ve&t
,lReported by Edward G.Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar·