The New York herald., 1869-02-17
UNITED STATES us1sIc1 CouaI-H ADMIRALTY.
Dseisian--Important to shippers and Masters
Of Vessels.

$3.50
Of Vessels.
Before Judge Blatchford.
.Incob WoU aud Alexander Woy ps The Bark
Ckbers her Boats, 4c-rhis Ia libel TO recover the
sum OF $4s9, the value OF the wine contained in
cask shipped on the bark Oilers, at Rollescaur, on
the I'd OF November, 1866, by 9. Helnmami Co.
consigned to the libelants at New York. The ship
ment was made under bill OF lading signed by the
master Of the vessel. The bill OF adlng covered
twenty-six casks In all. 1t contained statement
that the property was shipped In ''good order and
wen conditioned" and contracted for the delivery
OF it 'Tn like good order and well con-
dltioned," all ana every danger and acct
denrs OF the sea and navigation, of whatsoever ma
ture or kind, excepted. Upon the face OF the bill
Of lading (Which was printed blank in English;
filed up with written wOrds) the following words
were separately impressed by stamp:-"N0t &C.
eOntable for leakage breakage rust or corruption.
The libel alleges that the master failed TO deliver to
the hbelants the wine IN one OF the casks although
no danger accident Of the seas or navigation pre-
vailed and that through the negligence OF those In
charge OF the vessel-whe the wine In such cask was
was pierced In the head OF the cask, near the chmb
thereof, with an instrument unknown to the libel
iants and all Of the wine was taken out OF the cask,
and no part Of 1t was ever delivered to the libc.
The answer admitsthat the cask was delivered to
to It's external condition. and sets up that by the bill
OF iadng the vessel was not to be accountable for
rs NE cak deVersa e
at New York. to all external appearance In the same
condition In which 1t was received by the vessel;
that any loss or abstraction OF contents which oc
CURED happened before 1t came on board OF the YES
sci or after its delivery tnererom that during the
contents OF the cask were lost the loss was capsed
ny he nels & q the sea ana "a by yarssoa reason
ana not sufficiently strong TO Withstand the voyage,
and that by usage and custom in regard to such
merchandise the vessel IL not accountable for leak
4
to remark the wholly and recklessy inconsistent
statements IN this answer and which, moreover, are
to- shere ia, first, statement that the loss or
abstraction Of the contents OF the cask II any there
were, did not take place on board OF the vessel and
then sa cment that the loss. II any was caused by
The perils Of the sea and the inability OF the casS
t0 Withstand the voyage, and consequently
during the voyage and while the cask was
board OF the vessel. IL Is unnecessary
to say that both OF these ayerments cannot be true
The answer not having been excepted to for these
inconsistencies, this court must take that allegation
which operates most strongly against the claimants
TO be tine one really made-namey, the allegation
that the loss took place while the cask was board
proof in this respect corresponds with the allega
nons OF both the libel and the answer and shows
place while the cask and It's Contents We're on boar
oi the vessel. Such loss being SHOWN the burden
tails upon the claimants 70 stow that It was 0ccs-
from which they were exempted by the bill
of lading or by the. general rules q law
no saifactory evidence that the loss Of the wine
0ccasoned by any danger accident OF the seas or
0f pavigation. The only other exception IN the bill
of iading ON which the claimants can rely to hold
the vessel from responsibility is the provision thar
the vessel shall not be accountable for leakage. In
tins connection the answer that the cask was
defective aud imperfect. The averment ON the Dill
of lading that the property was in good order and
well conditioned 80 far as It is applicable 10 the
cask extends only TO the apparent external condi.
tion of the cask, excluding any implication as 10
its intrinsic soundness ana sulnciency. CLARKE
w. Barnwell, Blatchlord, G. C. Il. SILL
The claimants are ~ liberty, therefore, notw1tn-
standing The bill OF adlng TO show the defcciveness
Ut the cask IL is shown by the evidence that the
casE was In apparently good order when u was put
Oh board and did not then leak. difference was
then made I'm the decision to the emptiness OF the
caak when bulk was broken, and TO the apparent
cause Of ieakage-a hole in one OF the heads OF the
cask, which hoe, 1t would appear. had been made
serted into what was originally hole made by q
worm in the wood Of the cask.) This plugged hole
was latent defect In the cask. As the evidence
leads TO the Inference that the loss OF the wine
was cansed by this defect In the cask
and that such defect existed before the
oask was put on board, anu as, according 10 the
general rules Of law loss by such defect allords aD
excuse for the non performances Of the contract the
burden is thrown on the lDelanss to show tnat Tue
leakage and loss might still have been avoided by tnt
exercise OF reasonable SKID, diligence and attention
on the part OF tho carrier. IL was therefore, open 10
the belaDts 10 show Improper stowage OF the casS,
sufficient cause .he development Of the defect OF
10 show that the ordinary working OF the ship and
rargo ~ an incident 10 navigation would not nave
caused the breaking out o. the ping. CLARK Va. Bar
n9rd. ~ Howard 80, 2sS, 2s4l lhis they have not
shown, and the libel must, therefore. nc dismissed
with costs. Charles Goepp for the ibearts; james
X. llill for claimants.