The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-08-22
CARHESSNESS THE CAUSE THE FREE MAIL DELIVERY
THE FIRE ON THE BARK c. D.
BRYANT.
Judge Estee So Decides But Holds that
Owners Are Not Responsible for
Officers Neglects.

United States Judge Estee this morn
ing dismissed the McInerny libel
against the bark c. d. Bryant. He held
that the fire on the vessel was caused
by the negligence of the captain and
officers of the vessel, but that there had
been no showing that there was any
neglect on the part of the owners there
Of and on this ground it was decided
that the vessel could not be seized for
the loss sustained by McJnerny Bros.
by reason of the fire. The action was
brought to recover LOO for goods con-
signed to McInerny which were des-
troyed. The court said
1T seems the ship came into the port
of Honolulu all right, was brought up
to the wharf properly and so far as the
testimony shows was well equipped
manned and provisioned for the voyage
to Honolulu, and in a sea-worthy con-
dition, and only suffered injury by rea-
son of the fire discovered by the car
penter of the ship about five o'clock on
the morning of the 7th of July, 1901. The
Captain had been out on the evening
before the fire until IL o'clock p. m.
when he came aboard. The two mates
were then in their berths asleep No
watch was kept on board the vessel al
though the captain testified that that
night was the second mates turn
aboard. There was a ladder down the
side of the ship so that anyone could
get on board and the captain testified
that after he had turned in he heard
two men come aboard and also heard
them walking on the deck; but it does
not appear that he either got up or
made any attempt to investigate who
they were or what they wanted
ut is clear that the fire originated in
the forward part of the vessel and ii
evidently commenced in the night. The
forward hatch was off when the fire
was discovered in the morning, and it
would seem reasonable to suppose that
1t had not been put on since it was
taken off the day before, or if put on,
the officers of the vessel ---. not see that
1t was kept on, as should have been
done by the maintaining of a watch on
board. No one could have reached the
liquors in the hold of the vessel except
through an open hatch and there being
no watch this was easy to do, and es-
pecially so if the forward hatch was
open. In the opinion of the Court il
is quite as necessary to keep a watch
on ship board when in port as when at
sea, and particularly so when the
matches are opened and the cargo is
exposed and in process of being re-
moved.
"The Court is satisfied that the fire
was caused by the carelessness of the
officers and crew of the vessel. Some of
the crew evidently got at the cargo of
liquors through the open hatch, which
could not have occurred if watch had
been kept. Four seamen deserted on
the morning of the fire and during its
progress, two if not all of them We're
under the influence of liquor when they
left the ship and there is a strong pre-
sumption that they had obtained the
whiskey or beer or both from the cargo,
for it was early in the morning when
they were first seen aboard the ship in
toXicated.
"They evidently got at the cargo dur
ing the night time, and accidentally set
the baled hay on fire in the hold of the
vessel The watch on the ship was
necessary alike for the safety of the
ship and it's cargo for the loss or injury
to the one might, and usually would in
clude the loss or injury to the other as
in this case where it appears the loss
to the ship was so per cent of it's value.
And the lack of a watch was great ne
gligence on the part of the captain
which was aggravated by the leaving
of the hatch open and this negligence
was the greater by reason of the fact
of the cargo being hay and very COM
bustible.
testimony showing or tending to show
that the owners by either their design
or neglect caused this fire. The keep
ing of a watch is part of the manage
ment of the vessel, for the mistakes In
which the owner and the vessel are
both exempt.
after the loss has been shown to
have arisen by fire, the burden of proof
is on those asserting the fire was
l. 4 = 4,
ship owner. So 1t has been held that
the owner Is not responsible for the
negligence of the officers of the ship.
"As has been said, this ship was well
manned, equipped, and in sea-worthy
condition when ii left the port of de-
parture, and nothing to the contrary
has been attempted to be shown upon
the part of the libellants. Referring
again to Section 8 of the Harter Act
1t is provided that after due diligence
has been exercised to make a vessel in
all respects sea-worthy, and properly
manned, equipped and supplied, neither
the vessel, her owner or owners, agent
or charterers shall become or be held
responsible for damage or loss result
ing from faults or errors in navigation
or in the management of the vessel -
or be held liable for losses arising from
dangers of the sea-
"In conclusion 1 am of opinion that
as the proximate cause of the injury to
the libellant's goods was due to fire or
board the c. d. Bryant not shown tc
be due either to the design or neglect
of the owners of said vessel, the negli-
gence shown being that of the officers
and men of the ship in the management
of the vessel the owners are not res
ponsible under Section 1882 of the Re-
vised Statutes. and both the owners and
the vessel are exempted under the
terms Of the third Section or the Hartel
Act, under the circumstances as shOwT
in this case. Therefore the libel as Il
the vessel should be dismissed and the
same is herby ordered dismissed with
out prejudice and without costs.
"ESTEE,
' Judge"