The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-23
{, D. BRYANT
NOT LIABLE
Judge Estee Passes
On Admiralty
Case.
DEFINES RIGHTS
OF SHIPPERS
Muck Chai, Who Claimed Col.
Iector's Office Was Not Open,
Ordered Deported.

Judge Estee rendered a decision yes
terday morning in favor of the respond
ents in the libel suit of McInerny vs.
the bark C. d. Bryant giving at the
same time some interesting rulings as
to the relative rights of shippers, and
ship-owners.
There is one other case still pending
as result of the burning of the Bry-
ant, the Pearson & Potter Co., but it
is not known what disposition will be
made of 1t.
The following is the ruling of the
court, emitting the references to pre-
vious decisions:
It appears that the American bark &c.
d. Bryant" libellee herein. whereof one
p. Colly is Master, and j. Kentfield &
Co, intervenors and claimants, are own
ers. was on the 18th day of June, 1901,
living in the port of San Francisco, and
bound for the port of Honolulu, having
on board at that time, twenty-SiX pack
ages of merchandise, belonging to libel
liant to wit: one case of clothing ana
twenty-five cases of shoes, and also nav
ing on board certain other cargo mostly
machinery, the property of other peo-
pie.
That thereafter, said bark sailed Tor
the port of Honolulu with said mer-
chandise aboard where she arrived on OF
about the Sd day of July, 1901; that
on Sunday morning the 9TH day of
July 1901, a fire broke out near the
forward hatch of said vessel, where
the aforesaid merchandise was stow
ed, and by reason of said fire, large
quantities of water were poured into the
hold of said vessel and the park was
finally scuttled by the Captain, in order
to extinguish the fire, the ship then set
tied down, filled with water, the ire was
extinguished and after the holes were
plugged up, the water was pumped out
of the vessel. In the meantime this cargo
was seriously injured by the water and
fire There is no contest as to the fact
of the injury or the amount thereof. The
goods were sold at auction bringing three
hundred and ninety-nine dollars, the
owners paying at the same >.me s22. 80
freight thereon.
Libellants bring this action in rem
against the ship alleging damage in the
sum of eleven hundred dollars for the
failure to deliver the said merchandise
IN good order and condition" and alleg-
ing that by reason of the careless, negli-
gent and improper care and custody or
the said merchandise, and the want of
proper care on the part of the master
of the said SIP, it's officers, crew and
persons employed by him or them, the
said merchandise was consumed by fire
and ruined by water. The owners of the
said vessel through Captain Colly, the
Master, claim exemption by reason of the
fact that the goods were injured by fire
and that the fire was not caused by the
design or neglect of the owners of the
vessel or of the officers or crew thereof;
and that whatever loss or deterioration
claimed, that the same was done without
the privity or knowledge of the owners
OF charterers or the officers or crew of
the vessel; they also claim a further
exemption by reason of a clause In the
bills of fading that there would be no
liability upon the part of the vessel, her
owner or owners or charterers for dan
gers and accidents of the seas and navi-
cation of whatsoever kind or nature al
leging that the loss to the goods was
caused by a danger of the sea- within
the meaning of the clauses aforesaid.
l. This ship is a common carrier for
hire and the owner of all goods on the
vessel is primarily entitled to have rea-
sonable care exercised by the said car
rfer 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 enemies, or the fault
of the shipper, or by reason of some ex-
ception mentioned in the bills of lading,
or under the provision of Section 1882
to 1887 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States or of the so-called Harter
Act of March. 1893 (vol. 81 U. s. Stats.
P. 445)
2. The question is were the goods
or lost by fire which would
exempt the owners under the provisions
of Section 1852 of the Revised Statutes
which reads as follows:
No owner of any vessel shall be held
liable to answer for or make good to
any person, any loss or damage which
may happen to any merchandise what
soever which shall be shipped, taken in
or put ON board any such vessel, by
reason or by means of any fire happen
ing TO or on board the vessel, 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 condi-
ton, and only suffered injury by reason
of the fire first 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
We're then in their berths asleep. No
watcn was kept on board the vessel al
though the Captain testified that that
night was the second mates turn
aboard" There was ladder down the
side of the ship SO that any one 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.
1t further appears that In the cargo
We're several barrels of beer and cases
or barrels of whiskey and that they were
covered up with one or two tiers of baled
hay; that on the morning of the fire and
after it was we'll under way, four of the
crew left the ship, two of them in an
condition.
1t is clear that the fire originated in