¶1Cahethrs—Oi? Goods—Ships—Damage to Cargo—Improper Stowage.
¶2On tlie delivery qf a consignment of eight drums of glycerine, two wore found 1o he broken! On suit brought for the loss, held, that if all eight were stowed in an equally proper place, then the stowage of the two could not, in detail and arrangement,, have been proper or sufficient. If the two were *608stowed in a less safe place than the-six, considering the peculiar character of the drums, that was improper stowage; and therefore that the carrier had not relieved himself from the presumption of negligent stowage as the cause of the loss, and that the vessel was liable for the loss.
¶3In Admiralty.
¶4L. H. Arnold, Jr., for libelants.
¶5Lorenzo Ullo, for claimant.
¶8I concur in the conclusion of the district judge that there must he a decree for the libelants.1 The case is substantially like that of The Surrey,2 in this court. The six drums came in .good order, whatever perils of the sea there were, if the two drums which were broken had been stowed properly, they would not have heen injured. If all eight were stowed in an equally proper place, then the stowage of the two could not, in detail and arrangement, have been proper or sufficient. If the two were stowed in a less safe place than the six, considering the peculiar character of the drums, that was improper stowage. On the whole evidence, including the ■new testimony taken in this court, the carrier has not relieved itself from its liability, or successfully rebutted the presumption of negligent stowage as the cause of .the damage.
¶9There must be a decree for the libelants for $649, with interest from March 1, 1884, aud their costs in the district court, taxed at .$129.86, and their costs in this court, to be taxed.