after the occurrence; he thought himself safe where he WlUl. The testimony justifies a conclusion that his, resulted entirely from his own want of care. It is unnecessary therefore to consider the legal question raisecl-that the vessel was not ;responsible for the mate's negligence, if he was negligent. The libel must be dismissed.
THE OolPlC HbRN PIGEON.
Dol CROUZ' et aZ.
tI. THE CAPE HORN
(District Oowrt, N. D.DaZVornm Januaryll'/',1888.) I.
On a question whether tl1e yalqation of ,whalebone, which fO:rmed the basIs of II eettlement between certain whalers and their men, was fair and reasonable, it appearing that therll.was no mariket,th,erefor in San Francisco, where the ,settlement was made, the value must be fixed upon the basis of the selling price in New York, , with proper deductions for the expense of sending it there and preparing it for sale. The settlement, complained of was made at per pound for the men, and it appeared that, in order to 'pay this amount without loss, the owners must realize tl,.77per pound in NewYorlLThehig-hest o:ffer they had received was $1.50, whioh they refused, and they had thep.,oftered ,to sell &\2,.whiph was not ,accepted. Several ship-owners and agents of experience in the business testified that the settlement was a fair one, and it W,l¥I IIhQW!1 ·that many of the same men had engaged f1lr the fOllowlnf season at $1.25 per pound if the, catch exceeded 200 whales, and $1.50 per }lound i it was less than that number. The catch for the season in question was 845 whal-ell. Hew" that the settlement should not be disturbed.
SBAJnlf-RII)[UlIBBATION OP WHALlIM-!SIITTLBMBlfT.
In Admiralty. Libel by ,J. Al D,a Crouz and otIiers against the whaling bark Ca.pe Hom ;Pigeon. , ' , " ', ,Daniel T. Sullivan anq 1'. ,Va:nNprrnan, for, libelant. Miltun. Andro8 and Chas. Page, for respondents.
:ttOli'FMAN, Bistrict J udge'.' ·This.is one of the' libels filed by th,e wpich arrived 'at ;this port at the close ofla.lilt year's whaling Os!lll;son,to,J>rocure a Fevisioq by the court of the settlements or offered to It stipulated by the advocates; representi,ng all the a,nd all the libelap.ts that the testimony,should be confined to the in,quiry, whether the valuation of the were oil and Done, which formed the ,basis on Which the men's made up and adjusted, was fair and reasonable, and, if not, the court should determine on what valuation the accounts should be restated. The. testimony was quite volu.minous. I have very carefully perused it. The conclusioQal have reached are in accordance with the impressions , I received from hearing it or!Jlly delivered. 1. With regard to the oil, I think it is conclusively shown that the, price at which it was valued was fair" if not liberal. 2.. As to the bone, it seemS' that there is' no market for the bone in this city. The valuation on wl::lich the accounts must is the
THE CAPE HORN PIGEON.
market price in New York, less the freight, shrinkage, insurance, arill other charges and expenses incident to placing the bone on that The losses on a ton of bone shipped at this port, as taken from the ship and putah l·he market at New York, appear to be as follows: Shri'nkage between San Francisco and New Bedford, 10 per cent., 200 lbs: Shrinkage by cleaning at New Bedford, 5 per cent.,· · · 100 lbs. 200 lbs. Separating cullings under 4i feet, 10 per c e n t . , · ·
There will thus arrive at New York, of good culled bone, 1,500 Ib8" and also of cullings, 200 Ibs. The charges an.d expenses incurred per toti in placing this quantity of selected bone and cullings on the New York market, and effecting a sale of it, are shown to be as follows: · 8 50 Cartage from ship to railroad, Freight to New Bedford at 2! cents per lb., . :>0 00 Insurance at Ii per cent. on a valuation of $1.25 per lb., or $2,500 81 25 per ton, 50 Cartage to warehouse at New Bedford, Cleanwgand culling 1,800 Ibs,of bone (the quantity arriving after 4500 deducting shrinkage) at 2! cents per lb., · · · 50 · .· · Cartage New Bedford for New Yprk,.. 8 50 Freight to New York on'!, 700 Ibs. at I cent per lb., Insurance to New York at 1-10 of 1 per cent. on valuation of 2 50 $1.25 per lb., 50 Cartage in New York, Brokerage in New York, (say) · .. · · · 50 00 Interest .60 4ays at 6 per cent. per annum on valuation of $1.25 per lb., 25 00 These charges aggregate Adding $1.25 per lb., the valuation at San Francisco,
· 8 214 25 2,500 00
We have thus total cost of bone, if sold in New York within 60 days after ani val at San Francisco. witho l1 t inclUding ware-hOl1se charges at New Bedford or New York, · -
We have seen that from one ton of bone shipped from San Franciscb there will be put on the market at New York,culled and selected bone, 1,500 Ibs.; cullings, 200 lbs. The bone on arriving at New York is there charged with cost and expenses amounting to The 200 of cullings, it is testified, are of little value, perhaps 25 cents lb.) equal to $50. To enable the owners to settle with the men at $1.25 per lb., without loss, the 1,500 lbs. of selected bone mnst be sold at New York, within 60 days, at $1. 77 per lb. The best offer received by the owners, for any considerable quantity of bone, was $1.50 per lb. 000 lbs. This was declined. But they off to sell at $2 per lb. 'red offer was also declined. The bone was to be culled and selected delivered free of charges in New York. . . :.' Several of the ship-owners and agents have testified in court: . They are men of great experience in the business, and some of them ofui1m;nilil intelligence. They affirm very positively, and with apparent candor,ihat
of settlementaqopted by them was, in, their opinion, just and faiJ:t(),the men; and derive much, support from the fact tbllt tbe crews of a the whalers have reshipped for the next season on an agreed bastElJ of of $1.25 per lb. for bone if the catch amounts to 200 over, and $1.50 if the catch is leRS than 2QO whales. Twenty is to "be allowed for oil, without reference to catch. 'l'he number of whales taken during the last season was 345. The men have been settled with on the same basis as that mutually agreed for next year, if the catch is over 200 whales. I find no reason the settlement mad,c J Oll the ground that the men have not fairly dealt by. . .
THE SARAH CULLEN. KNICKERBOCKER S'.l."EAM: TOWAGE CO. ". THE SARAH CuLLEN.
(tXrcuit Oourt of Appeals, Second Oircuit. November 7,ll:l9L)
M.uuTntB LIlI:N-ToWAGB-CttlilDIT OJ' TmRD hRSON.
·Libelant rendered towage service to a vessel without express employment by her master, or agreem6nt to pay. Libelant was afterwards informed that the R. Ice Company was to p.ay for the towage. and thereafter, for the above and subsequent towage services, rendered, bUls to such ice company, which were paid in part. No notice was given to the vessel owner that the ship was expected to pay for the towage until the failure of the.ice company. six months after the first voyage. Held. that the service was Dot rendered on the credit of the vessel, but. on the oredit of the oharterer. 45 Fed. Rep. 511, amrmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern of New York. In Admiralty. Libel for towage by the Knickerbocker Steam Towage Company against the schooner Sarah Cullen. A decree dismissing the libel was affirmed by the circuit court, and libelant appeals. Affirmed. It appE'.ared Jhat the schooner was at the time under charter to the Knickerbockel' Ice Company, which had agreed to pay for all towages in the Kennebec river. Previous to the of the towage sued for, the libelant had rendered other towage services to the schooner, the bills for which had been paid by the Ridgewood Ice Company. No notice was given the master or owners of the vessel that they were expected to pay these towage bills. until after the failure of the Ridgewood Ice Company, and the claimants contended that the services were not ren. dered on the credit of the vessel, but at the request and on the credit of ice company. The district court found that the services were not rendered on the credit of the vessel, and dismissed the libel, (45 Fed. Rep. 511;) and. on appeal, a pro forma affirmance was rendered by the circuit court, whence libelant appealed to this court. Wing, Shoudy &: Putnam, for appellant.