The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1838-12-19

' ing that one ofihe claimants, who was who'll
I ly ignorant of the nature OF the contract,
!, aud consequently could not knew il was be-
1 ing departed from, did MT admonish him
against the deviation. Good faith would
not require n shipper who was wholly igno-
rant of the perils Of the sea, or If the modes
) of providing against them, to direct the at
ltention of an experienced shipmasier to a
lpalpable error in the slowing Of his cargo,
neither did il require in this case that Mr..
Bisley, who did not know but the contract
authorized a stowage upon deck, should re-
mind the master Of what he ought already
to have known, having signed the bill Of la
ding, TINT he was committing an error in
slowing the goods there. For these reasons
consider the fact that Mr. Bigley saw The
molasses on deck and did not object. as a
circumstance entitled to no weight in exam
lining this question.
Is it possible then to justify the stowage
upon deck : Iflhere was no settled princ-
pie Of upon the subject, the circums,,n-
stances warranted the shippers in expecting
that their goods would be safely slowed in
The hold. They made the shipment in sea-
son and paid full freight. Understand that
goods carried on deck always pay lower
freight and higher insurance than goods re-
gularly slowed in the hold. If SO, the cir
cumstance of receiving full freight is of il.
self conclusive that the defendants ought not
to have placed the goods on deck
Although the claimants thus adopted the
usual course Of shippers Of goods, they were
not permitted to enjoy any of the benefits
he Inn Al, H. h.,r
~ was placed in n condition of peculiar cx-
posure TO disaster, yet had they effected in
snrance upon it, in the usual form, they
rould not hive recovered on the policy. 1t
did not constitute, in legnI contemplation,
any part Of the cargo Of the vessel, and
when TO save the rest Of the property on
board, and to relieve the vessel herself from
peril, it is voluntarily sacrificed, they found
themselves precluded from what is deemed
the common right Of all shippers, that OF in
demplty by an average contribution.
This cannot he pronounced j"si, upon
any principle, and an therefore of opinion
that the bill Of lading imposed upon the de-
PENDANTS, the duty of slowing and securing
the molusses in the usual manner, thereby
aflording 1t m equal chance of escape from
peril, aud giving il the legal Us well as the
substantial character Of cargo, So Ms to az
ford The shippers the protection of any pol !
icy of insurance they might have effected,
or the benefit Of average contribution in the
event which hns occurred.
1fihe arbitrators concur in the result Of |
this opinion they will "award, determine
and declare, that the said Henry Bull nnd
Joshua c. Biglev are not entitled to recover
in general average for the goods and prop
erty lost, belonging to them, mentioned in
the agreement of submission between them,
the said Bull aud Bigley or the first part
mud Borden Wood, William ii. Crandall,
Simon Newton and John Heath Of The sec
ond part, dated July 24,h, 1888, aud tina,
they, The said parties of the first part, are
entitled To recover against the said parties
of the second part, the whole value of the
said goods and property, tha, is to say the
sum Of &c. Il
(Signed) CHI. O'CONNOR.
Oct !, 1888.