The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-03-26
SHIP DETAINED IN HONOLULU
Compelled to Anchor in
the Stream.
Consul Thought Captain Joked.
Now United States
Will Settle.

The assistant Comptroller of Cur
rency has recently made a decision in
favor of w. R. Grace & Co, owners
of the ship j. B. Thomas, for claims
for demurrage, because of the deten-
tion of the ship in Honolulu while
waiting to discharge its cargo of coal
consigned by the United States Gov
ernment, from Norfolk, Va, to this
port. The decision is as follows;
IN RE CLAIM OF W. r. GRACE &
COMPANY FOR DEMURRAGE.
/ The ComptrolIer has no jurisdiction.
under the act of July 81, 1894, to entertain
any claim not previously passed upon
and settled by the proper Auditor; bur
when such settlement has been made,
he may entertain claim for an amount
greater than was claimed before the
Auditor III il relates TO the identical sub
Ject matter passed upon by hlm, as IN
this case. where demuTrage for only seven
DAYS was claimed before the Auditor.
while the claim as presented TO the Comp
trclIer is for twelve and one-half days
>. Under d charter party providing that
lay days for diSCharS1nS shall commence
from the time the captain REPORTS
his vessel ready TO discharge. such dis
charge to take place 'alongside any craft
floating depot or wharf designated by the
CharteTeTS at rate not less than one
nundreG tons per day" am arrival at the
port in accordance with the customs of
the port and notice by the captain OF
his readiness to discharge, imposes the
duty of promptly designating the place
of discharge upon the conSignce OF the
ChaTtercr, and in the event of his fail
ure TO designate such place OF discharge,
the lay days begin to run against the
CharteTeT.
? When. after the designation of the
place of discharge by the cOnsignee. it
becomes necessary to interrupt the dis
charging by reason Of the arrival OF
right TO the wharf designated, and the
vessel is hauled away and loses time in
discharEing, the time so lost must be de
Quoted from the lay days reserved in the
charter party for the cOnSiguee.
T. Although the number of lay days
is not specified in the charter party, yet,
the rate OF discharge having been hNed
i'm the charter party and the tonnage Of
the cargo being known, they must be
treated as being as definite as II speci-
ncaUy stated
;. in computing the lay days, Sundays
and holidays must be excluded. if the
custom of the port IS not TO discharge on
such days.
6. Where a bill of lading calls for
ped but the words weight unknown are
inserted by the master above his sigma
tuTe, those words must control. the num-
Der of tons stated being equivalent only
to words OF description. as that the cargo
is about or estimated at the weight
set forth: and the prima facie obligation
of the ship TO account for the stipulated
amount ceases, the charterer being then
required to show that the amount stated
was in fact delivered to the ship
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Office OF Comptroller Of the Treasury,
February g. 1897.
w. r. Grace x Company. as agents for
the ship Joseph 3. Thomas" w J. Ler-
mOnd, master, presented q claim TO the
Auditor for the Navy Department for
dernuIrage arising rom the detention OF
this snip at Honolulu while under char
ter party of November 30, 1893. entered
into 10y Pay Director Billings, acting for
the Navy Department, tOr d voyage from
NurfOlk, Va, TO Honolulu, Hawaiian
The claim as originally presented was
1896. which was approved Tor settlement
10y the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts,
Navy Department. August o. 1896, Tor tnaI
amount. This claim the AUDITOR Tor the
Navy Department disauOWed on August
81. 1896 for the reason that,
There is nothing IN the papers TO in
dicate that the delay in unloading the
vessel was caused 10y the agents OF the
United States, and unless the delay was
caused 10y their neglect demurTa2e can
not be- allowed
1t is proper To state that tine very fun
statement of facts IN the affidavit of tho
master, together with some OF the cor
respOudeuce OF the Navy Department in
reference 10 this matter was not helpta
the Auditor at the time of this decision.
From this decision of The Auditor Grace
g. Company appeal, and no" present
claim for II - days GemuTTagy instead
of days, as originally presented. The
discrepaucv is accounted for by The fact
that the master advised Grace & Com
pauy that he had offered to settle with
the Consul General upon the basis OF
seven days demurrage, which was de
cHned, ana the master being stiu at sea
they so presented the claim. not having
all the facts in the case now set forth
in the masters affidavit
While this office has no jurisdiction Un-
der the law to entertain any claim not
previously passed upon and settled by an
Auditor, the facts in this case warrant .
consideration OF the claim as now pre-
scented. for the reason that it is for the
identical subject matter involved in the
claim passed upon by the Auditor, the ad-
ditional amount being only for additional
days OF detention NOT included in the
original presentation Of this claim. IT,
however. Grace K Company now made
a claim for some other distinct subject
matter, as an unpaid portion Of freight,
in addition to the claim for demurrage
presented 10 the Auditor, such new claim
could not be entertained as a part Of this
claim.
The ship was chartered to carry