The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-23
clRElEsSHEss CAUSED
Bark BRILHT's Billie
Judge Estee's Decision
In McInerny Bros
Libel Suit.
OWNERS HOT HELD RESPONSIBLE
WATCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
KEPT ABOARD VESSEL WHILE
IN THE HARsoR.
Libel Is Dismissed Without Prejudice
and Without costs-offieers Of
the Bryant Were NesIisens-The
Decision in Part.
OWNERS HOT HELD RESPONSIBLE

A decision was rendered yesterday
by Judge Estee in the United States
District Court in the libel suit of Nc
Inerny Brothers VS.. the bark c. D.
Bryant for loss sustained by the plain
tiff in the fire aboard that vessel on
July last, in this port
The decision dismisses the libel.
holding that the owners are not res
ponsible for the negligence of the
ships officers.
In part. the decision is as follows:
This ship is a common carrier for
hire and the owner of all goods on
the vessel is primarily entitled to have
reasonable care exercised by the said
carrier whether in port or not. In
this case the ship is liable for the
value of these goods unless they were
lost by the act of God, or public enc
mics, or the fault of the shipper, or
by reason of some exception mention
ed in the bills of lading or under the
provisions OF sections 1882 TO 42S7 Of
the Revised Statutes of the United
States or of the so-called Harter Act
of March, 1898 (vol. % U. S. Stats, p.
445).
THE question is were the goods
damaged or lost by fire which would
exempt the owners under the provis
ions of section 1892 of the Revised
Statutes which reads as follows:
No owner of any vessel shall be
held liable to answer or make good
10 any person, any loss or damage
which may happen to any merchandise
whatsoever which shall be shipped.
taken in or put on board any such
vessel, by reason of. by means of any
fire happening to or on board the yes
sell unless such fire is caused by the
design or neglect of such owner
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 condition, and only suffered
injury by reason of the fire discovered
by the carpenter 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 II
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 although the captain
testified that that night was the sec
ond mates turn aboard. There was
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 at
tempt to investigate who they were
or what they wanted
at is clear that the fire originated
in the forward part of the vessel and
it evidently commenced in the night.
The forward hatch was of when the
fire was discovered in the morning.
and It would seem reasonable to sup
pose that it had not been put on since
it was taken of the day before. OF
il put on, the officens OF the vessel did
not see that it was kept on. as should
have been done by the maintaining
Of 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 especially so If
the forward hatch was open. In the
opinion OF the Court it is quite as ne
cessary to keep watch on ship board
when in port as when at sea. and par.
ticnlarly so when the matches are
opened and the cargo is exposed and
in process of being removed.
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 sea
men deserted on the morning of the
FIRE ard during its progress. two II
not all Of them were under the influ-
enes Of liquor when they left the ship
and there IS strong presumption that
they had obtained the whisky or beer
or both from the cargo. for 1t was
early in the morning when they were
first seen aboard the ship intoxicated
They evidently got at the cargo
during the night time. and accidentally
Iset the baied hay On Ere in the bold
OF the vessel The watch on the ship
vas necessary alike for the safety ol
the ship and its cargo. for the loss o.
injury 70 the one might. and nsasily
would include the loss Or iniary TO the
lother as in this case where II appears
the loss TO the ship was 50 per cent
- S. e1fseo ~ 49, 4a.k - = --,eek