Case Name: THE BEECHE DENE. J. T. LUNN CO., Limited, et al. v. CAMERON et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1893-01-16
Citations: 55 F. 525
Docket Number: No. 42
Parties: THE BEECHE DENE. J. T. LUNN CO., Limited, et al. v. CAMERON et al.
Judges: Before PARDEE and McCGJiMIOK, Circuit Judges, and LOCKE, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 55
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
THE BEECHE DENE. J. T. LUNN CO., Limited, et al. v. CAMERON et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 16, 1893.)
No. 42.
iS.-ai’i — Injuries to Goods — Liability—Evoustcr.
Whore fho fact of damage to goods on the voyage, and tiie extent of such damage, are shov/a. the burden is on the carrier to show that it wag occasioned cither bj inherent detects in the goods or by sweat oi the ship, and lienee within the ox cep.dour, of Hie bih of lading.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
In Admiralty. Libel by William Cameron and J. W. Castles, trading as Cameron. & Castles, against the steamship Beeehe Dene, her tackle, etc., (the J. T. Lunn Company, Limited, claimant;,) for damages to a cargo of sugar. The vessel wag released on daimaut’s bond. Diehard MUliken, surety. The district court entered a decree for libelants, from which the claimant and its surety appealed.
Affirmed.
Joseph P. Horaor and Guy M. Horner, for appellants.
Richard I)e Gray, for appellees.
Before PARDEE and McCGJiMIOK, Circuit Judges, and LOCKE, District Judge.

Opinion:
McOORMIOK, Circuit Judge.
The appellants claim that the damage to the cargo was occasioned either by inherent defects in the goods or by sweat of the ship, and within the exceptions in the bill of lading. The burden of proof was on them to show this, as the fact of damage and its extent were fully shown. A careful examination and consideration of the proof fails to satisfy us that such was the case, and our conclusion, therefore, is that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed at appellants' cost, and it is so ordered.