et al. v.
(D18trl,ct Oourt, 8. D. New York. May 16, 1892.)
Goods liable to'injure eaoh other may be carried in the same ship, It it be the general usage to parry tllem together, provided all proper means are employed to prevent injury. 2. SAME-TEA AND CAMPROR"":INFII:RENOIll of NlllGLIGENOII:. ,; But where tea and camphor were carried on the same vessel, there being no glill6ral,I.!Sage to oarry the two together, but this vessel being especially fitted with an air-tight compartment for the camphor, in spite of whioh the tea was delivered impregnated with the fumes of camphor, it was held that the inference p,f want oarewl\lI irresistible, and that the ship was liable.
SmPPINIi:.-DAMAGlll TO CARGO-STOWAGE-USAGII:.
In; El)art3"Choate Wing, Bhoudy
Libel for damage to cargo. Beaman, for libelants. Putnam, for claimants.
Decree for libel!tnt8.
The evidence from Shanghai sufficiently establishes that the tea, when shipped,was in sound condition and free ffoI11camphor damage. This confirms the recital of the bill of lading that the tea'was received good order and condition." The evidence also shows that all the tea consigned to the libelant was more or lesa damaged from the fumes of camphor,when delivered. The ship carried on board 400 tons of camphor, all in the aft compartment, separated by an iron bulkhead from the CiOmpartment next forward, in which, the tea was stowed. The defense as well ,as in other parts of the is rested upon the alleged custom of bringing tea and camphor as parts Of the Same cargo, and on the claim that there was no lack of care on the part 'oftbe ship. ' > lcannot 'sustain the defense. The extreme susceptibility of tea to d,amage froriHhefumesofeamphorhaslong been known. The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. Rep. 174. The value of tea in this market, however it may,be.inEurope, is greatly diminished by camphor infection. ,Doubtless"goods liable to injure .each other may be carried in the same ship, ir'it be the gf;lneral usage to carry them together, provided all proper means are employed to prevent injury. Olark v. Barnwell, l2 , The SabianceUo, 7 Ben. 357; The Oarrie Delap, 1 Fed. tea and camphor Rep. 874. But nQ general usage is established to in the same vessel to thislJountry. Minis v. Nelson, 43 Fed. Rep. 777; Iooksson v. Williams, 26 Fed. Rep. 642. Nor is there evidence of any ctlstom anyiwhere to bring camphor in such a way as to impregnate with its fumes nearly a whole cargo of tea. The practice of sometimes !briilging them,together in the Same vessel is of very recent date, and only in vessels specially designed and built to keep the camphor in airtight compartments. When a large part of the cargo is found to be impregnated with camphor fumes on board a ship thus built, like the
BRbWN, District Judge.
mE B. D. limBER.
Glamorganshire, the inference of some want of care is irresistible. The 7'imor, 46 Fed. Rep. 859. Decree for the libelants, with costa.
(Ctrcuit Own Qf
THE R. D. BIBBER.
Fourth. Oircuit. Ka7 S5,189lL\
SID1'I'JNG-D.uu.GB TO CARGO-STRA.NDJNG-NBGLIGBNOB.,;
A llchoone.r loaded with a cargo of rails, transported under a bill of Jailing wbloli excepted liability from "dangers of the seas," arrived off the bar at Galveston .harJ bOr;. Quicksands cause the depth of water on this bar to constantly vary, and. is not uncommon for vessels to ground in The master consulted with ilie local pilots and with his broker, and by their advlCe lightered 100 tons of hiaoal'gol Being then assured that the vessel would cross in safety, heprooeeded, in charge of a pilot, but the vess.el, from some nnknown cause, went fast That night a storm arose which lasted two days, and drove the vessel balf a mile from the channel, and on some shoals. From these she was afterwards taken off by salvors·. The cargo owner paid salvage on the cargo, and brought suit against the vessel to recover the same; alleging that the stranding was caused by the negligenlle of the master in not further ligbtering schooner before attempting bar, Hdd, that the grounding of the schooner was not due to the negligence .of b'er masJ ter; that, even were it due to his negligence, still that was but a remote cause of the salvage service, the proximate cause, which alone the law regards, the storm, and from damage caused by that her bill of lading protected the ship. ,
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. In Admiralty. Libel by Miffiin Kenedy against the schooner R. D; Bibber. Decree dismissing the libel. Libelant appeals. Affirmed. Brown <fc Brune, TreadweU Cler!eland, Arthur George Brown, and W"z.. liam V. RoWe, for appellant. Robert H. Smith, for appellee. Before BOND and GOFF, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District
HUGHES, District Judge. The schooner R. D. Ribber received in Philadelphia a cargo of 780 tons of steel rails, to be delivered in good dition at Galveston, Tex., subject to the usual exception of the "dangers of the seas." With this cargo she drew 13 feet 9 inches aft and 13 feet 6 inches forward. She reached the ou ter harbor of Galveston on the 17 th of January, 1887, and came to anchor. On a voyage a few months fore she had taken a cargo of 780 tons of rails to the same port, and; without lightering, bad passed over the bar of that port, safely, into the wharf. On this second trip her master went ashore to the office of the pilots in Galveston, to inquire about the depth of water on the bar. formed that this was 13 feet 6 inches on a tide, and having consulted his broker, he engaged a lighter, and went out with it to his vessel oIi the morning of the 18th, and took off 100 tons of rails; by doing which the draft of his vessel was reduced to 13 feet 3 inches aft and 13 feet 'foi'ward,as indicated by the marks on her stempost and stem. 'fhere--