Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-11-24
s'A11L 60 n EOIs
EVidenee-Rurdan of Prnof-Inrr

Evidenee-Burden of Proof-Jury.
When disaster happens in fair weather
and without apparent peril of navigation TO
cause il, there Is in the absence of other
proof sufficient 10 couuterval 1t =. pre-
sumption OF the fact that the vessel was un-
seaworthy, but the assured may show by
proof that the vessel was in fact seaworthy,
and then there is PRESUMPTION OF loss by
some peril OIL navigation, covered by the
policy, uoless the insurer can show that il
was otherwise caused by some danger not
within the policy. The technical difficulties
oil the burden of proof are diminished in
such cases by observing the distinction be-
tween that burden as a matter of plead
ing and the sometimes shifting e1igencies OF
The testimony, requiring further proof from
the one side or the other. But in all these
csses there is no fixed presumption OF law or
fact, but only m after of inference by jury
from the particular facts Of the case, and
they are always TO determine the issue &C.
cording to the peculiar facts OF each case.
Insane SUBJECT.
Construction of NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. of the
Observation-Disclosures Policy.
Where the form of the policy ia one Tor
general use in the insurance business; the
word Adventures" associated with the words
'perlls OF the lakes, seas, rivers, canals, rail-
roads, Tires and jettisons," cannot be permit
ted to enlarge the phrase, "perils OF the
river" 1t is a self-distributIng policy, to be
construed in each case with sole reference 10
the subject matter of the risk in that case,
whether of lake, sea, river. canal or railroad.
1y-sAME sUBjEcf.
feriis OF the Sea or River.
While it is settled that the nhrase "periiis
Of the SEAL does not cover all losses that hap
| pen n the sea, there is a principle OF con-
! struction which gives it as extended mean
/ ha HI
ton is perilous, and the rule that the in
surer is liable only tor losses occurring from
extraordinary causes means nothing more
than that a seaworthy vessel will endure all
| ordinary perils; ii does not mean that loss
for which the insurer is liable may not come
to a seaworthy vessel, from the ordinary
action OF the sea, for it may, and the term Is
only used 10 describe those abnormal circum-
stances of dangerous navigation under which
the loss occurs, be they what they may. Be-
cause the "perlP cannot be located, it does
not follow there was none.
v-sAME SUBJECT.
| sesworthiness.
The best and most skiIlful form of con-
struction is not required to meet the war
ranty of seaworthiness, but only sufficient
construction for vessels OF the kind insured,
and the service in which they are lodged.
vI-sAME SUBJECT.
| Raft.
A raft is not, in the ordinary acceptatien
of the maritime law, "vessel," but where
it is insured by 'cargo policy" and is in
charge OF towboat, the principles Of Law
governing the contract OF insurance are ap-
plicablo TO it.
vII-sAME SUBJECT.
Case in Judgment.
Where a raft of logs was insured in voy.
age in charge OF a towboat, and coming &c
the mouth of river up which it WAS 10 be
placed a short distance, it was lost under
circumstances which did not disclose any
extraordinary action of the elements, or, as
far as could be observed, any negligence o
navigation, but it was proved that the raf
was fseaworthy"-held: 1. That there was
in the absence of proof TO the contrary.
presumption Of loss by some unknown peril
.. That it was probable the loss was caused
by the combined action of the currents of the
two rivers, the strain of the tugs eDgsged il
towing, and possible unskillful or negligen
navig alton of the crews engaged in the tow
all Of which was covered by the policy.