The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-24
THE COURTS.
An Admiralty Libel Subtitle
Epizooty Legally Defined.
NAE WIDOW OF COLONEL FISK IN COURT.
Michael Norton Endorses Note for VIM. ].
Sharkey and What Game of It.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.


Tho Epizooty Legally Denned-An Adj
miralty Libel suit-Decision by Judge
Blatchford.
Pilsbury C0ombs vs. Michael Nolan ana Michael
NcGrath.-Judge Blatchford rendered decision in
this case as fOllows-ln October 1872. the schooner
Yankee Blade, OF which the nbellant was master,
brought q load Of granite blocks to New York I'M
der q Dill Of lading therefor which contained no
provision in respect to their discharge except that
yhey were to be delivered TO the respondents and
70 be discharged with the assistance OF the crew OF
the vessel. The libel claims 5000 damages for the
detention OF the vessel by the respondents on the
allegation that they took fourteen days to dis
charge her, whereas they ought to have discharged
her In two days, and that the delay was caused by
the negligence OF the respondents after the arrival
OF the vessel and alter they received notice Of
her readiness to discharge. She arrived on
the 10th OF October and reported to the
respondents. She did not obtain q berth at the
proper wharf for unloading, so that her unloading
could not have been commenced until the 25th.
She actually began discharging on the slst and
renee was used after she began discharging, and
on the evidence the only delay for which the re-
epondents could, In any event, be neld liable would
be for the six days from october rs to october 81.
Az to this delay the defence set up In the answer
II that IL was not possible to procure the necessary
horses for the discharge OF the cargo until the 3ist
or October; that horses were Indispensable Tor the
purpose and that owing TO an epidemic or conta-
StOus disease which then prevailed among horses,
The evidence SHOWS the prevalence OF such an
epidemic among horses; tnat the respondents,
after the vessel obtained her berth for
unloading, used all reasonable diligence
pensable, not only to hoist the stone on
TO the DOCK but to cart 1t away because the owner
OF the wharf would not allow the stone to lie on
the wharf; that the respondents finally obtained
and used three horses for the work-one to hoist
the stone from the vessel and two to cart 1t away
and that they paid tor the OF the three $40 per
day, when the ordinary price would nave been Tor
tae three ss 70 per day: On these facts inc ques.
are liable Tor the delay caused by their inability,
because OF the epidemic, to procure the necessary
horses There can be no doubt, l think, that the
only obligation resting on the respondents under
the usual and customary way, with reasonable dill
1Rence. There was no contract binding the re-
spOndents TO discharge the cargo in . specified
number Of days. According to all the authorities
major, while 1t will not relieve reighter
from paying damages where he enters into
positive undertaking to discharge cargo IN
given number OF days, Will not be visited upon him
and extends only to the exercise OF proper dill
gence In the customary manner. In such cases the
delay Is regarded as misfortune, caused by UiS
major, ana each party must bear the loss he has
discharge OF the cargo was rendered impossible by
cause over which be had no control-F0rd vs..
Coeswortn, Law Rep, 9, b. I27. and 9. B., $40;
in view OF ali the circumstances, l think that
the respondents discharged the cargo in reason
able time, that they were guilty OF no fault or
laches and that any delay which occurred was at
trtoutable to causes over which they had no con-
troll The libel must be dismissed. with COSTS
Scudder d Carter for The libellant; Matthew
Daily +. r. Coudert Tor the respondents.