The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-23

wzs great negligence On TIE part Of
the captain which ~zs aggravated BY
the leaving OF the hatch open. an1
this negligence vas the greater b.
reason q the fast q the cargo being
hzy AMI vsry cOuoGsrible
In this case there Is practically no
testimony showing OF tending 80 show
that the owners by either their design
or neglect caused this fire. The keep
Ing OF 4 watch IS q part o. the usn-
.agemeat OF the vessel for the mistakes
in which the owner and the vessel are
both exempt under the provisions OF
the third section Of the Hartsr Act.
page AS. In constituting the Harte.
Act Il vas held by the Supreme Court
Of the United States that.
Plainly the main purposes OF that
ACT we're TO relieve the ship owner
from liability for latent defects not
discoysrable by the utmost care and
diligence and in the event that be has
exercised due diligence TO make his
vessel seaworthy. 20 exempt him and
the chip from responsibility for dam
age or loss resulting from faults or
errors in navigation or in the manage
ment of the vessel
After the loss has been shown to
have arisen by Ere. the burden Of
proof is on those asserting the fire was
caused by the neglect or design OF
the ship owner. So it 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 a sea
worthy condition when it left the port
of departure. and nothing to the con-
trary has been attempted TO be shown
upon the part Of the libellants. Re
ferring again TO Section 8 OF the Harter
Act. it is provided that after due dill
genee has been exercised TO make a
vessel in all respects sea-worthy. and
properly manned. equipped and sup
piled. neither the vessel, her owner
or owners. agent or charterers shall
become or be held responsible for
damage or loss resulting from faults
or errors in navigation or in the man
agement of the vessels or be held
liable for losses arising from dangers
of the sea-
at is evident that the words man
agement of the vessel cannot refer TO
the navigation of the ship while at
sea. because there is a special clause
as to that. but that it applies rather to
fault or error resulting from the
management of the business of the
ship or the discipline thereof. as in
this case the failure to have a watch
while in port, which concerned both
the safety of the ship and its cargo.
or the failure to do something which
does not belong to the navigation or
movement of the ship but which af-
fects in some degree both the ship and
the cargo
in conclusion I am of opinion that
as the proximate cause of the injury
to the libellant's goods was due to fire
on board the c. d. Bryant, not shown
to be due either to the design or neg
leet' of the owners of said vessel. the
negligence shown being that of the
officers and men of the ship in the
management of the vessel the owners
are not responsible under Section 1882
of the Revised Statutes, and both the
owners and the vessel are exempted
under the terms of the third Section
of the Halter Act, under the circum-
stances as shown in this case. There
fore the libel as to the vessel should
be dismissed and the same is hereby
ordered dismissed without prejudice
and without costs
Hatch & Silliman. attorneys for IL
bellants; Kinney. Ballou & McClana-
han, attorneys for respondents.