she did notcar,ry inexCe$s of 3,000 ,p!!.ssengers on the day in question. Of the two enpmerations, presented respectively by the libelant and the steamboat, opinion that the clear preponderance of proof is in favor of the latter. Tl1edecree is reversed,and case remanded to the, circuit court with, instructions to dismiss the libel.
TSE WILLIAM CRANE. MERRYMAN
fl. THE WILLIAM CRANE.
, Cotton stowed ontha main deck'of a large coasting steamship for a voyage from Savannah to Baltimore, under ,the upper deck. in a space between the main deck and the, upper deck, ,J;ly:t\lelronbulwll.rks and by strong shutters and bulkheads, to be properly stowed, although not under the hatches of the main deck. Held that, the stowage bein'g'in a protected place, and customary and proper. the cotton CQulLnot be said to be "on deck,» and the steamship was not. liable far damages from sea water, llaused by an unusual storm, which flooded the decks, and broke down,the bulkhead,andtore away theprotectioDs.
(SyHabU$ by the, Oourt.)
In Admiralty. Libel by Merryma,n & Co. against the steamer Wil· liam Crane for damage to cargo. Fisher, Bruce & Fisher, for libelants. Wm. P. Whyte,for respondent.
MORRIS, District Judge. This is a libel to recover for damage by sea water to 80 bllies of cotton shipped on the steamer WilliamCrlllie, to be carried from Savannah to Baltimore. The decision of this case de· pends upon whether the cotton was stowed in a place on the steamer where, under the bill of lading, it might rightly be placed. The Wil· liilm Crane is a large iron stell,W pJ,'opeller, intended for" the coastwise trade, and above her main deck has an upper deck, on the top of which are structures containing pilot house; officers' quarters, and staterooms for passengers. Along the sides of the ship this upper deck is not altogether permanently inclosed, but may be inclosed when required for carrying cargo. The space' between the :tnain and upper decks is seven feet in height. ,Four feet of this height i,s permanently deflmded by the irclO bulwarks,and rail of the ship, and the remaining three feet between the rail and the upper deck has wooden shutters, which can 'be tightly fitted in, and made fast between theperm(tnent uprights which support the upper deck, thus inclosing the:entire space. The middle of the ship between the main and the upper' deck i$ occupied by permanent structures containing the engine room and quartersfor, the engineers and others. an alleywayon each side. The forward end of each alleyway is closed by a heavy bulkhead with doors. was i:a these alleyways that the cotton involved
THE WILLIAM CRANE.
in this <lontroversy was stowed. It was raised somewhat from the deck by dunnllge, and was kept in place by uprights, which left a narrow gangwayalongside}pe engine room house. On the voyage from Savannah .the steamer encountered a severe storm, and shipped a heavy sea on ,the starboard side near the bow, and just forward of the bulkhead inclosing the starboard alleyway. The wave boarded the vessel with such force that it flooded the forward main deck, broke down the bulkhead on the starboard side, wrenched oft' seven feet of the wooden shgtter'next and, crossing the ship, burst open the iron cargo ports in the bulwarks on the port side, and carried away a portion of the port rail. The water flooded the starboard alleyway, and saturated the cotton so that it suffered damage to the extent of $10 a bale. There was also a portion of the same shipment, containing 13 bales, which was placed upon the open deck, forward of the bulkheads, in the space between them and the' forecastle, which were damaged by the same sea. As to these 13 bales the owners of the steamship admit her liability, and have tendered payment of the damage. The owners of the steamship deny their liability for the damage to the 80 bales of cotton stowed between the upper and main decks, contending that it was properly stowed, and that the damage was caused by a peril of the sea, within the exception in the bill of lading. , The libelants rely upon the established rule that a clean bill of lading such as was given upon the shipment of this cotton imports thl,lt the goods are to be carried under deck, and not on deck. The De[aw(lre, 14 Wall. 579. They contend that, as the cotton was not under hatches below the main deck, its stowage does not gratify the contract. Unquestionably, on sailing vessels, "under deck" is held to mean beneath the hatches, in the place devoted to the under-deck cargo. On a sailing vessel no other place is protected from the spray and water, and in no oth.er place can cargo be placed so as to le:we the decks free and unobstructed for the handling of the sails and the navigation of the ship. But on steamers navigating our inland and coastwise waters on short voyages this is not the rule, because the reason for it ceases. The size and stability of such steamers enables them to carry extensive upper works, built high above the main deck, and they have no need to keep the main deck clear for handling sails, or for any of the requirements of navigation. Goods placed upon the main deck in such steamers are as safe as those placed below, if the space thus used is sufficiently protected, and provided the goods are not of such weight as to disturb the proper trim of the ship. This has freqtlently been declared to be the rule. It was so held in The Neptune, 6 Blatchf. 194; Harris v. Moody, 30 N. Y. 266; Gillett v. Ellis, 11 Ill. 579. It is matter of common observation that cargo is constantly so carried on such steamers. The question in this case, to my mind, is therefore not whether the cotton was carried under the hatches of the main deck, but whether it was carried in a protected place, under cover, and where experience had demonstrated it would be safe. The alleyways under the upper deck, inclosed with the wooden shutters already described, were designed in
a. plaMf6t carrying 'cario.. "The cubicalconof the vessel by the 'It is that carrying cargo:tbere,'int· beM the 'proper weight,in the ship less sellwortby.Cotton .in 'bides 'ia not damaged by 'a' 'sl1ght wetting, in proportion to' its' bulk makes it proper to he carfled th.e of a vessel. It tq then, that the queshon 1'8 wh'ether' or not the constructlOn of tHe shutters on the SIdes and the bul:'1tf¥ea'c1s'in fr?nt of these alleyways was Buchas to be reasflnR,bly safe aSlJ.,:,'protectfon wayes, wh.ichthe.ship mil?ht !Je ex11ected to encouhter. Consldermg' thelocahon WaS m the mIdshIp sectiiinpf a'largifsteamer, and consideriqg the elevation above the surface Of the s,en.; T'am of ()pinion that the shutters and were sufficient in forthe purpose for which the builders of the steamer desil'!;ned them; It i$ objected that the space was not sufficiently indosed because the after ends 'of the alleyways were not protected by bUlkheads, and, that a sea coming aboard from astern would reach the cotton, but the fact is that nearly the whole width of the stern was filled up by the passenger saloon, which nearly dosed the after ends ,of the alleyways, and it' could hardly be that any but a small amount of'spray c,ould reach the cotton from that direction. In this case the proof shows that the watenvhich caused the damage came with great violence ftom near the starboard })ow, amI. not from the stem. It is true that on this vo>?age the bulkhead was bursted in, and a portion of one shutter tom away, but the'violence of the wave must have been extraordinary, and the Occurrence an exceptional one, such as will occasionally do great damage to the strongest vessel. The testimony of the master, who has been navigating this steamer for four years, carrying cotton in the same mannet, is that he never had such cotton damaged, either before or since this voyage; and the testimony of a num'berofother witnesses who are familiar with the business of similar steamers carrying cotton from Savannah to northern ports is. that their experience justifies them in considering such a location on the vessel as safe for cotton as below the hatches Of the'main deck. I do not think the libelants are entitled to recover for thedamsgeto the 80 bales sued for in their libel.
ot these l$rJaceswas included In ascertaining; the
et at ". THE
',I · , '
8. D. New York.
b,rokeo¥t-in a puilding near, a bulkhead" within 4() 01',50 feet of which lay the' Wrkentine J ohtt SWan. Two tugs, coming'up, were requested by the only person on th6.ll:mp to tow,iller Illto the stream. which was one of the tugs. reo IIlainingby bel', as bel' anchor dragged sOIUewhat. Before the tugs b.ad hauledthe vessel out,'the city fire hoat 'arrived. Events proved that tbe fire traveled away frolQ s\1ip,and that tb.Elre was nO for haUling herillto the stream. , Held, that at the time the 86rvice was begun there was such reasonab,le apprehension of danger as made it proper to' remove the ship; that the service, ,was a salvage service, though otsJIl.all merit; and $125 was awardell to $75 to the otb.er, costs i>eing refused to one tUg because she had exacted one tug,: seouiitym the sum of $5,000. ' ',. ,
OliT BULltlllUD-ApPRBHBNSIOl'l' OJ'DAlII'GBR-EXOBSSIVB , , ,
In Admiralty. Libel for salvage. ', ' GobdridhlDeady &: Goodrich, for the Henry A. Peck. Owen;Ylfay &: ,for the Quaker City. ' Wing, Bhirudy &: Putnam, for the John Swan.
BROWN, District Judge. OnJunel,1891, the barkentine JohnSwan,! loaded and ready for sea, lay on the north side of the wharfat the foot of North $ixtl'l street, Williamsburgh. Between 11 and 12 P. M. a fire broke out in the street and in a building stretching across from North Sixth to Noi'th, Seventh streets a short distance from the bulkhead at the head 6fthe slip. ,The stem of the ship was some 40 or 50 feet distant from til is 'bUlkhead. The tugs Henry A. Peck and the Quaker City in the East river, observing the fire, made their way thither. The Peck arrived first. One of her hands was sent to the Swan to ascertain if help No one was on board of her except a watcllman, , 'who -roused, he asked that the ship be towed out. The QuakerCity had by that time arrived; both tugs got out hawsers to the ship "iln'd towed'her Otlt iIi the stream, where she was anchored. The Peck, finding that the anchor dragged some, remained by her; the Quaker City left for other employment. The claimants contend that the vessel was in no danger, and that the service was of no value. The witnesses for the Peck affirm that smoke and sparks were about the vessel. The claimants contend that this is a gross misrepresentation; their testimony is, that at least from half an hour after the tugs arrived, when their witnesses were on the scene, the wind was setting up river and on shore, so as to carry any fire sparks away from the ship. The fire extended two blocks to the northward; and not at all to the southward; it was hotter and fiercer at North Seventh street than at North Sixth. Some bagging and bar-