The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-08

IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN ADMIRALTY,
By Hon. Judge Belts.


cargo Of hides consigned to the defendants. They
resist the payment of freight because the hides
were delivered here in damaged condition from
wet The ibellant insists, the damage, ii incurred
at sea- was occasoned by the blowing Of the vessel,
and that the loss falls the owner Of the goods
bill of ladng was signed by the libeant at Kio
acknowledging the lading Of the hides on board,
perfectly dry and welEconditioned, and binding
| him to deliver them to the defendants, at New
| York, on receiving freight, sc. There was no
qualification Of his liability on account of dangers
Of the or other causes, other than memoran-
| dunn at bottom, ''weight unknown" The Court
held that seagoing vessels, transporting merchan-
disc for freight, common carriers, ana the mas
ter and owner liable to the responsibilities OF COM
mon carriers at common law That Hthe parties
annex no qualification by agreement, TO the under
taking of the master, the marine law applies none,
and the master and owner are bound absolutely TO
deliver the goods received, except prevented by
| the act Of God or by public enemies; that the
| bill of ading in this case made the libclant an
insurer for the safe delivery of the cargo that If
| the blowing Of vessel is anything other than
peril Of the sea, it is not incident to navigation
| which cannot be prevented or avoided by human
means that it is different to the sweating ola vessel,
| which is caused by atmospheric Influences change
| of climate &C., and is not under human control;
| but that, upon the proofs, proper preeaution IN
stowage, or keeping the ship dry, will prevent the
water thrown up between the sides and shin OF the
vessel by the rolling of the sea from being forced
through (Which is called bowing), to the injury OF
| the cargo Held, also, that the libellant failed
proving the fact that the cargo had received its in
| jury from the blowing OF the ship Held, mat the
bill of ading is prina facie evidence that the hides
| were dry and in good condition when shipped but
does not preclude the libellant proving they were
| damaged at the time, though he IS not entitled to
the presumption that they were, hides are usually,
| shore damaged before shipped that no custom IS
proved which affects the liability of the master,
under bis contract. Held, that the bellant is not
bound by the method adopted by the defendants TO
! fix the amount of damage. They sold the hides at
private sale, making discount or allowance Tor
| those damaged If the damage is determined with
out the concurrence OF the loeant, !, should De ny
sale at public auction. Held, that the tender and
payment by the defendants Of So91 ~ must be re-
| garded general payment on the whole freight,
aud that the libeant cannot apply 1t to discharge
that portion Of the freight in dispute and ground
| his action upon that part admitted to be earned
Held that the defendants entitled to compensa-
tion, by way of reeompense, against the freight Tor
| the actual damage to the hides on the voyage,
and ordered reference to ascertain the amount
thereof.
Charles Gan,ain rs. James Gmre.--This case
was heard upon the pleadings and proofs before
Judge Judson and decree rendered for the libel
lant an order of reference made to commissioner
to state the balance due the libeant the accounts
between the parties The libel demanded 81 ,t6a
80. The commissioner reported due HIM Sis, ana
the report confirmed, and final decree render
cd for that sum. The defendant insists the libel
liant is not entitled to costs, and should pay COSTS
because the dealings between the parties was
partnership transaction, ana because the oslenee
has succeeded in reducing the demand made by the
action to less than one-third the sum claimed.
Held that the question of the right OF the libelant
i'll this court, and OF partnership between the
parties was raised by the peadings and disposed OF
by the decree; and that defendant cannot, by ex-
cepton to the commissioners report, or on motion
for costs, 60 beh nj that decision Held that the an
swer denying ri toto the !hbellan r1ght 10 re-
cover and thus putting him to prove his whole de-
mand equity in respect to costs arises IN favor OF
the defendant because he has succeeded in the lit
cation in lessening the recovery The issues were
In substance decided in favor of the libeant the
amount to be received on that determination Of his
right was matter Of accounting before the commits
sioner The party who succeeds on the merits Is
usually entitled to costs in Admiralty az wen as IN
Chaneery. Order for costs to the lbellant. -
Thomas III. BdTSt0,c rs. Sdmud ID. UH,not.-Ihe
libellant claims freight on n lot OF mill stones
brought to this port from Liverpool in the ship
Mortimer Livingston, Of which he master: and
an additional sum of - for extra charge in unload
ing them, amounting IN all to Sl1l DO. The defend
| ant rendered and paid into court S13 w, claiming
damages equivalent to the rest OF the freight because
of the breaking and loss Of OF the stones The
bill of ladng admits the grindstones were received
on board in good order, and undertakes to deliver
them TO the defendant in like good order at the port
of New York. Gall and every the dangers Of the seas
! eScef::ssaa.; The lb9llan! proved the stones
were laid on their flats upon coal in the
hold Of the ship, with coal around and above them
and proper dunnage of boards under 10 Keep them
level and between the edges to prevent their striking
together; and this was proved to have been good
and proper storage. The passage was very rough
and the ship was thrown on her beam ends once or
more, and the cargo shifted so to give her two
.reals or feet list Held, that under the exceptions
TO the bill Of ladng, the libeant was only answera-
bic for misconduct on the omission of proper care
and diligence in slowing aud taking care Of the
60 and no such delinquency being proved against
him he was entitled to full freight. Decree ac-
cordingly.
JJIimin Harold, Jr &C. Timothy Ca,cy.-This
case turned upon question of fact, as to whether
the defendant was liable TO the hbellant TO per-
son by the name Of Mcclure, for the freight and
transportation Of various cargoes of stone, in the
sloop Judson, TO dock in this city. Held, that the
testimony clearly proved the libellant entitled to
the money, aud that no contract was proved by the
defendant with Mcclure, for the work. Ii such
agreement had existed by accepting the stone from
the libellant's vessel, and making partial payment
towards the freight, the defendant admitted, In law,
his obligation t. pay the full freight money. De-
cree for the lbellanf.
1Jrohon Codmps g. 90. re. hascm Bcmon.--
This suit i against the defendant, owner Of the
sloop lliam Bayard, u recover for supplies fur
nished LSf. TLs answer denies the defendant was
6vher Of the sloop, and AYERS that she was owned
by Ahlrilge, and that the supplies were furnished
on the credit Of the owner, defendant being only
master. In bar Of the action, the answer further
set up the discharge Of the defendant from all his
debts under the nsolycnt Law Of this state, since
the debt contracted, he and the hbellant being
~ the time Of the proceedings, and discharge. resi-
dents Of this State. 4 general replication TO tue
answer was Tut in. The libel was fled Nov. u,
1919; the answer March :. 1850; aud the replication,
March 22d. On the 9Th Of January, 1871. the usual
order Of reference was made TO n commissioner by
consent of 10th parties; and the 9th the report
Of the commissioner was fled, certifying n small
balance due the lbtllant. Exceptions were fled
to the report Of the defendant, because the commits
siorcr refused to receive or act upon proof Of his
discharge under the insolycnt act. Held Nv the
court, that the commissioner had no authority to
rdiudge upon the suficency Of the pleading: his
duty solely to investigate and ascertain the
counts between the parties, and report thereon: and
no objection TO the f,Tort IN that behalf being made,
tho exceptions ore over ruled. The parties placed
the cause upon the calendar and moved il TO q
herring. when there was no issue between them
upon the point. The lbellant wished 10 litigate
the validity Of the defendants discharge. lie as
scrts, argument, various particulars, which
might have an important bearing II brought before
the court to lie ahudicated upon; but there Is
nothing IN the llcadings papers before the court
by which II V made 70 appear there Is legal de
feet In tho discharge III there Il any issue 10 tho