insul'anceis thereby avoided, and he has no opportunity to protect himself by the ordinary security of marine insurance·· · These more emphatically in this case than in ,0rdina,1'11Casesof deviatiOOl.' For these goods were brought back of startilDig;no notice was given to the shipper; he was igl.lOrant of the facts, and the opportunity was not given him to insure !that might have been given. . The cases above cited have never been applied, so farras i1 know, to cases of maritime deviation. I must,Jtherefore,hoIa the respondent liable as insurer. 1 Pars. Shipp; &p 'Adw. 171, riote;;Abdmany cases there cited; Ellis v. Turner, 8 Term R. 531; Trott v. Wood; 1 Gall. 443, Fed. Oas. No. 14,190;, tBWiJin' v. Jr. 229, Fed. Oatil. No. 1,152; The Boi1dentown,40 Fed,·682,689. It isturther contended tlllil:t under the first clause of the bilI of lading, il:hEdibelant's recovery cannot. exceed $100 per package, as thev:alue was not made known, nor any agreement made for the paymemlrof freight at an extra rate. The validity of stipulations of this character has been repeatedly upheld by the supreme court (RaiJ.roadiGo. Vo Fraloff, 100"U. S. 24, 27; Hart v. Railroad 00., 112 U. S. 331va Sup. Ot. v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410; Baldwin v.Literpool, 74:N. Y; 12i); and recently in the cour.t of appeals of·this·circuit in Potterv-TheMajestic,'9 0.0. A. 161, 60 Fed. 624, 630. !tis urged that effectiought not to be,given to this/stipulation, because literally lI!ead it pl'ovjdesthat the carrier shall Mt.be liable for anythingl:ttthis case ;andtbaHhisis so unreasonable that thestipulation shouldbe:allowedrno. effect at alL I do not think that constructionwnstb.edntention.of the stipulation, or that it, is a reas()uable c()ns,ttuction of it.; Literally, the. goods which are above $100· in thepaclo:age maybe excluded. f['omconsideration,and only those which amount to $100 be regarded. That, I thinlr, is the fair inteij.:tion; of the clause in question; and as the decisions cited sustain. it as 1;llus construed, ,I Jnust hold ·accordingly, and allow a decree for thelibelantfor;$2,9(10, for the 29 packages, wUh interest and costs. '
THE G. R. BOOTH. AMERICAN. SUGAR-ItEFINiING CO. v. THE G. R. BOOTH.
rieo1' !ltable"ti,s insurer'ibothflfor violation oftM contract,:and be-
by another vessel than that contracted for, renders the cal'-
(District Court. S. D. New York. November 23. 1894.)
OF S',l'OWAGE BUFFI-
',While tIre steamsnlpG'.,n. ·B.was discharging, an explosion of detonatQrs ctLnse:(1,a bole in tM'!$hjpwhlch letin water 'Wbich extended to handJed .lit!! ,'ordinary'mel'c1i:andise, .and 1:)elieved. to be Held: (l)'Thatthlldamage havlng)arisen prtmarUy from sea water. the burden Of ,prop!, :W1Ul'OU the libelant to show negligence In the defendant; (2) detonators. as ordinary merchandise being pl'oved to Qe
THE G. R. BOOTH.
in accordance with the custom of the country, and without knowledge of their dangerous character, was justifiable and was not negligence. and the libel was dismissed, without costs.
This was a suit in admiralty by the American Sugar·Refining Company against the steamship G. R. Booth for damages by an explosion, whereby sea water was let into the hold, causing injury to libelant's sugar. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for libelant. Convers & Kirlin, for respondent. BROWN, District Judge. On the 14th of July, 1891, while the steamship G. R. Booth was discharging her cargo at East Central pier, Atlantic dock, Brooklyn, an explosion occurred in the afterhold when the cargo was nearly all discharged, by which the steamer's iron plates on the starboard side were burst through be· low the water line, in consequence of which the after-hold was flooded with water. The water made its way thence through the bulkhead into the compartment next forward, where the libelant's sugar was thereby wet, damaged and melted, for which damages the above libel was filed. Although, upon the contradictory evidence, it is not altogether certain what it was that exploded, it was probably certain cases of "detonators," boxes of which had been stowed in the after-hold, and most if not all of which had been already removed to the dock. The libelant contends that these boxes of detonators were highly dangerous, and that the ship in stowing them in the lower hold took all risks of explosion and the damages that might be caused thereby. The officers of the ship, however, had no actual knowl· edge of the shipment of any dangerous explosives; or that these boxes were dangerous, if, indeed, they were so under the ordinary conditions of shipment. They had no mark upon them like "Mit vorsicht," such as is usually put upon goods at Hamburg, to indio cate that they were to be carefully handled, although they were marked "Capsules" and "Spring-Capseln," and were specified as "Detonators" in the bill of lading; terms not appreciated by the officers. I do not think that the liability of the vessel in this case is made out. The explosion did no direct damage to the sugar, nor in any manner directly affected it By bursting a hole in the side of the ship, sea water was let into the hold, which subsequently made its way among the sugar and damaged it. Such damage is a sea peril. The Xantho, 12 App. Cas. 503, 508. The burden of proof is upon the libelant to show that it might have been avoided by the ship by reasonable care. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, 280,282; Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129; The New Orleans, 26 Fed. 44. In other words, the question is one of negligence; and in this case, a question of negligence in the reception and stowage of cargo. But the evidence is not sufficient to show, or to warrant the in" . terence of, any negligence or lack of customary care on the part
of ,the ship in ,receiving these boxes, or in stowing them as was done with other cargo in the hold or in the subseq1.lent handling- of the cases. The small capsules are so packed in 'cases, and with such care, it difficult or impossible to produce any ex· 'or' by dropping, knocking or pound· plosion by any mode of ing. . See Mackenzie's Report. ' 'l'hey had been lopg accustomed to be handled by sea and land as ordinary merchandise is handled, and carried in the same manner. 'l'hey were not known, or con· sidered, or treated, as dangerous cargo. No previous explosion in transit is shown. Prior to this accident, it was usual to carry them indiscriminately with Qther cargo. Since this accident, it has become customary for steamers to carry them either in the hatches or on the deck; while sailing vessels stilI stow them below deck. In the absence of any proof of knowledge of danger, it is sufficient, on a question of stowage, to stow according to the knowledge and experience of the time, and to observe the usages of the time and plate. See Baxter v. Leland, 1 BIatchf,526, Fed. Cas. No. 1,125; IAmb v. Parkman, 1 Spr. 343, Fed. Cas. No. 8,020; The Ti· tania, 19 Fed. 107, 108; The Dan, 40 Fed. 691, 692; The Dunbritton, 61 764, 766; Carv. Carr. by. Sea, § 96. This was done by the steamship in this case. Why the explosion occurred in this instance can only be conjectured, viz., from some possible detachment of a portion of the fuhriinatewithin the capsules, an occurrence previously unknown in transportation, and arising, probably, in the manufacture and packing; certainly not from any fauIt of the ship. To charge the ship in this case with negligence in care or stow· age,wOiuld be .to make her responsible for what was essentially accidental, and altogether contrary to previous experience and usage, which justified the carriage of these boxes in the same man· ner in which they were carried, even had the officers fully under· stood their contents., The libel must be dismissed, with costs.
THE ETuNA. DOHERR v. THE ETONA.
(DfstHct Court, S. DJ·New York.
The ship .E.' being anChored by a local pilot in the Amazon at Para, While j.mloadingplll't of .her cargo dragged her anchor from the great forceoN;he current anc;Igrounded upon a sand bank which caused her to tak;e .lIciltrong list, in of which the drainage from some PerI1arnbucostigar in the between decks ran over the coamings upon some hides in the lIoldbeneath:Held (1) that the stowage of hides beneath sugar stowed oD; perfectlytjgh,t Iron between decks was not negligent stowlAg; (2); that,the .pqssibjUty· tbe. escape of dJ.'ainage into the hold over coalliings a foot high, in consequence of a listfrom stranding, was not Bucha' .contingency was to be foreseen and guarded against, or evidence of the ship's negligence; (3) that the selection of a place for ,anchoring, from which the stranding resulted, was a part of "the navigation and management of the ship," within the third section of the Harter
'1'0 I:hDES-SUGAR DRAINAGE-FOREIGN SHIPSPILOT'S MrS'liA'KE-INVALID STIPULATIONS--:'HARTER ACT.