The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-23

the forward part of the vessel and 1t
evidently commenced in the night. The
forward hatch was off when the fire was
discovered in the morning, and L. would
seem reasonable to suppose that it had
not been put on since it was taken off
the day before, or If put on, the officers
of the vessel did not see that 1t 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 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 a watch had been kept.
Four seamen deserted on the morning
OF the fire and during its progress Two
if not all of them were under the in
fiuence of liquor when they left the ship
and there Is a strong presumption that
they had obtained the whiskey 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 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 its value.
And the lack of watch was great neg
ligence on the part of the Captain which
| was aggravated by the leaving of the
hatcn open, and this negligence was the
greater by reason of the fact of the
cargo being hay and very combustible.
| In this case there is practically no
/ 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 a part of the manage
mont of the vessel, for the mistakes in
which the owner and the vessel are bot.
exempt.
! After the loss has been shown to have
arisen by fire, the burden of proof is on
| those asserting the fire was caused by
| tie neglect or design of the ship owner
! not responsiuie for the negligence of the
/ officers of the ship.
| AS has been said, this ship was well
manned, equipped, and in a sea-worthy
conu4tion when it left re 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 3 of the Har-
! ter Act, 1t is provided that after due
S2tl,r
vessel in all respects sea-worthy and
properly manned, equipped and supplied
neither the vessel, her owner or own
I ers agent or charterers shall become OF
be held responsible for damage or loss
resulting from faults or errors in navi.
cation or in the management of the YES
sci or be held liable for losses
arising from dangers of the sea. -
1t is evident that the words manage
ment of the vessel cannot refer to the
navigation of the ship while at sea, be-
cause there Is an especial clause as tc
| that but that it applies rather to q
fault or error resulting from the man.
agement of the business of the ship OF
/ 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 some thing which does not belong to
! the navigation or movement of the ship
but which affects in some degree both
i, the snip and the cargo.
The exceptions in this case are not
found alone in the bills of lading, al
! though they do stipulate to relieve the
vessel from the perils of the seas but
the proximate cause of the injury to the
! libellantS goods in this case did not arise
from a peril of the sea but from fire
! while in port. The case of the G.. r.
Booth cited by counsel and found in III
! U. S. 461, is upon a careful examina-
ton not believed to be in point.
| 4. This action is a proceeding in rem
and libellants urge strongly upon the
Court that they are not asking any relief
against the owners of the ship; that all
they wish is a remedy against the ship
itself, the offending thing. 1 fail to see
the distinction made by counsel in this
respect. A decision in favor of libel
lants against the ship and decreeing its
sale for the payment of the amount of
the Judgment found due, would be simply
a decree against the owner Of the YES
sell for If the ship is sold it is the prop
erty of the owner which is sold and he
would in this case be punished for some
thing of which the statute says he shall
be exempt.
| In conclusion ] of opinion that as
the proximate cause of the injury to the
ilfbellants goods was due to fire on board
| the c. D. Bryant, not shown to be due
either to the design or neglect 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 Stat
utes, and both the owners and the vessel
are exempted under the terms of the
| third Section of the Harter Act, under
the circumstances as shown in this case.
Therefore the libel as to the vessel should
be dismissed, and the same is hereby or
dered dismissed without prejudice and
without costs.
ESTEE.
Judge.
ANOTHER CHINESE ORDERED DE-
| PORTED.
An oral decision was rendered yester-
day by Judge Estee in the case of Muck
Chat, the Chinese who claimed that he
| had no certificate of registration be-
cauSa the COLLECTORS office had not been