The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-20

Two Suits in Admiralty Against tn,
Guy G.. Goss Dismissed.

Guy T. GOss Dismissed.
Judge Hanford. of the United States court,
axainst the BARK Guy C. Goss. His opinions in
these cases involve some interesting points in
thelaw OF tbs liability OF common carriers One
OF them was al follows:
Puget Sound Machinery Depot VS.. Bark Guy
C. Goss, etc. W. u. MalIett, claimant.
In admiralty. Suit by the Puget sound Ma
ehfnery Depot "a corporation) for damage by rust
70 : consignment Of iron pipa. shipped from
rev I 1osk via cape Horn TO Seattle. on the bark
winsor & Farwsll for iibsiant: W. H. Pritch-
ard and John e. Elder for claimant
HAEFoRD. diatrict Judge.
The libel in this case charges that the pipe
vas so damaged when delivered a. to be OF no
caused by bad stowage and negligence on the
part OF the master and crew: but fails to specify
N what way the pipe was damaged. whether by
breakage, rust or otherwise. The answer adj
mi,s that the pipe WAS received by the ship in
good order, but denies that it was damaged
when delivered; denies all the allegations of
negligence, and AYERS that the cargo was prop
cry slowed and dunnaged. Tho was ac-
eording to the practice in this court referred to
ecommisaicner to take and report the evidence.
The iibelant produced a. witnesses its presi-
dent. secretary and manager, and upon the tes-
timony OF these three rested. Said testimony
whole il quite vague and unsatisfactory m
the libel In substance 1t is that the pipe, w1en
nrs, examined after being discharged from the
shin, was in bad condition. Mr.. Thomas II.
Greene, the secretary, estimates the total dam
age at 1000 The others each say (reierring 10
ID III
damaged about asa per cent. There is not .
word in the testimony offered in behalf of the
: lbaiant in chief as TO brsakags or rust No Of
Ter was made to give in detail any information
o to the number Of pieces that were found to bs
injured. nor as TO the manner in which the
damage was caused only from questions to the
/ respondents witnesses and testimony intro
duced after the evidence for the defense had
closed does 1t appear that the iinsiants griev-
ence il on account of rust No offer made
essvidence tending to prove that the vessel was
enseaworthy, or that the cargo was not
that the master. mariners or stevedores were
guilty of any negligence, and the proctor Tor the
ahelant rested upon the meagre testimony
Above summarized without giving notice of an
Intention to Offer further proof at later stage
ei the case. Thsreupon the proctor for claim
ant fled with the commissioner notice to dis
Miss for want of sufficient notice to sustain the
material allegations OF the libel. But without
waiting to submit the motion to the court re-
spondent proceeded before the commissioner
! With the taking of evidence on his side after
giving notice that the motion was not waived.
The pipe was shipped under a contract, con
nA,ng clause exempting the ship from liza
NIFTY for leakage, breakage or rust, except
from improper stowage." which contract is set
forth in an exhibit attached 10 the libel. The
voyage not pro.rac.sd beyond the time or
oina,ily required for sailing from New York TO
Puget sound. The vessel. at the time of sailing.
was staunch and seaworthy, and made the pass
ee without developing any defect or incapsc-
iIy for transporting in safety the cargo which
she carried. All necessary repairs occasioued
feyents Of the voyage were promptly made.
The pumps were worked regularly, and kept
TIE water from accommodating In the shin. The
evidence on the part of the respondent is posi-
i've TO tie effect that the csrgo,was well slowed
aDi properly duuuaged, and that in every way
ieoxn 10 ship masters and stsyedores the cargo
Vas protected and male secure for the voyage.
In rehnttal the iibelsnt introduced some ex-
fsrt evidence To the effect that in the opinion of
4 TIE witnesses the character of the rust on the
eie indicated that il WAS caused by salt water.
4 lie nToctegs OF the iibelans appear Ia have
taeory that the damage Was caused by blowing
q ellgs water through the air strip, but there Is
II SUPPORT there
i eass no testimony to the cause of the rust,
sxcep, mere conjectures OF the witnesses Those
j Vac give opinions that salt water caused il
Laow nothing about the construction of the
zap OF the manner In which the cargo was
sowsd or the occurrences Of the voyage, and Of
eSafse have no basis for al opinion as TO how or
wen sat water could have come in contact
ahh the pipe. Without better evidence than
AS cannot hud that the rust was caused by
Improper stowage." unseawortiness of the
ZIP or negligence uuiaithfulnsss on the part
e.tne master or any person in the service OF the
up: and without evidence TO support such
/ snaings the nbelaut cannot recover.
haSisa cause of deterioration inherent in
II Ge seoaa In issuing the bills of iading care
sn taken to protect the ship from liability for
0asSe from this cause not duo TO some act
| susssion or defect, for which the owner, mas
! l Aeat Or some person in the service OF the
~ night be held 20 be blamevorthy. There
80 ne burden Of proof rests upon the Iioelant
ii Ssaos sueh bameworsay act. omission or de-
al 80 aeEtlsh. Il How. $40; Western Trans
N tIaaon Company vs. Dawner, IL Wall, l2a
II
/ fssae Hoerai. reqnIge orderly procedure and
ssasss III the conduct OF cause Additional
81 1890 may bc Introduced az any stage OF the
1 e<iore ina! decree is signed in the court
~ stAai jurisdiction. and even after ap-
sAen 3 trial de nova IS allowed IN the ap-
III r.sIs court, provided good cause is shown for
i iNoaecing II IS the proper time. But it can
CseS lecelfcd cut OF time without a sufneient
- - 'aereioT appearing Under this rule the
= - go Is entitled 20 have ths decided
81 .9s evidence OF the tTsi three witnesses
I,s4Ihei lnAlded by the ether evidence taken.
10y opinion. however, that the result must
i Ea sane whether al the evidence offered on
y a.. ICES or only thai offered by the iibelsnt il
~ es considered. Decree Of dismissal.
Az aas other case tie court handed down the
@ios:as opinion:
~. ee Company vs.. Bark Guy C Goss, ". n.
aaesf, Claimant
i sanira.ty. Suit "a rtsa by the Z. Lobe
s.aas.Anl. corporation, Tor Damage 10 toy. and
A.. We Garfield ~ the bark Guy {. Goss from
> rh.esA 10 seattle Dismissed
kdsen & hamphries, FOR iibeiant
=. e.s.a. ffiteaard sEd John Il. Elder, for
= sT1srcsh. district iadse.
- Os.ss..aoe ' am sues a corporation. Its legal
. Fl NAV, Aal f3gh. to IS ptlt IN issue oy the
Ia, -. 40 iseEe : proof of it, organization.
III ass... cause, II no other, the libei must be dis
esse however, read sill the evidence aud
q e.rzse sustain tae allegations il the libel,
- pestbi--es - 4cela-is goods by the unses-
II kz~. a. o Tie sGlp. bad stowage, want Of
>e-1.~ssa negligence, csrelesxness and
Aaasr - .'-4Cet and want OF stteatlon of tie
- Esa 80 mariners snd servants" there Is no
ma eaAlsSer except testimony showing tina:
-. goods han delivered ~ seati,s xsre ia