THE EURIPIDES.

161 The libelant,

The boat was in legal effect delivered to the libelant.

in putting its grain on the boat, did not part with the possession of the

grain, nor deliver it to the boat owner. On the contrary, the boat was. delivered to the libelallt, and was legally in its possession, custody, and control. The libelant was owner pro hac vice. 'l'he claimant was not liable for the boatman's willful torts or crimes, if any had been proved. Scarffv. Metcr/lf, 107 N. Y. 217, 13 N·. E. Rep. 796. The libel is dismissed, with costs.

'lHE EURIPIDES. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING

Co.

t1. THE EURIPIDES.

(DistrWt court, S. D. New York. June 11,18112.> L
SHIPPING-DAMAGE TO CARGo-INSUFFICIENT PUMP-NEGLIGENCE.

Where a vessel arrived with her cargo of sugar damaged both above and below by water in the hold, and the evidence indicated that the damage above had been .caused by water taken in deck openings in weather, but that the damage below was caused bya bad condition of the ship's pump and valve, which conditio·n existed at the commencement of ·the voyage, and also that reasonable care had not'been taken to remove the water when it was found that the pumps were choked, it was held that the ship wasHable for the latter damage; not fOr the former.

2.

The vessel was demised to charterers, who had subchartered her at the time of the damage by a charter of aftreightment. Held, that the original charterers bav-' ing undertaken to transport the goods under authority and consent of the ship<owu, . ers,under a bill of lading signed by a duly-authorized agent, or withont any bill of lading whatever. on her implied contract to' transport safely, the ship woUld be liable.· .

SAME-CllARTEREDVESSEL-LIABILITY OF SHIP.

. In Admiralty. Libel for damages to cargo. Wing, ShourJ,y Putnam, for libelants. ConVeTS Kirlin, for claimants·

Decree for libelants·.

. BROWN, District Judge. On discharge of a cargo of sugar in New York in March, 1892, brought by the Euripides from Havana, some two feet of water were found in her hold, causing considerable damage to the sugar, some of the bags being entirely empty, and some 2,500 partly empty or damaged. The above libel was filed to recover for this loss and damage. The claimants contend that the loss occurred through a peril of the seas, in consetInence of an unusually long and tempestuous voyage, ·4uringwhich a great deal of water was taken over her bows, which worked more or less down through the deck about the mast and ventilators into the two compartments below. The four-inch pipe from the water closet, leading to the ship's side, was also found to have,a hole in it of about an inch and a half in diameter, claimed to have .been gnawed by rats, about 1201; 18 inthes of the valve, which was a little inside pf v.52F.no.1-11

FEDERAl. h1l:POR'rBR ,vol.

52.

i OW Hich"lidditional ,nMr! worked its wity. bring iadyi water some' five or six days after ofwatdi wassuspe?ted.: to oe'sboa1'd''tIottl her arrIval m"NewYl:>rk. Subsequentexammatlon s1)6wmftHat.tbe 'pumps got fiNed tip solid at bottom by candied ' The vessel sailed on February 17th. No heavY'weather was experienced'till the: 19th; and from, the 22d to the 28th was continuou(:;'heavyweitther.. She arrived :in , New York on March 3d. I have considerable doubt whether the hole shown in the pipe was gnawed by rats. Although one rat was seen, there are no other of rat damage, nor of any considerable number of rats aboard. The amount of water taken in tp.e to have been comparatively small. Three hundred bags is the highest estimate given at the .dawaged, part trial of of the cargo. This number, or whatever number may be found to have been injured momrwater:,taken.infrQIU,a.bo\;e, should ,be excluded, as caused by sea perils. indieateany such amountm water takenillt in :ili'is way:aa to tthe, :bottom, where'mQst of the damthe J;lipe, and should have.been,.preventedby·\be valve; but the valve, also, was proved by as to afford insuffi,cient . Water 1D the hold ought to have been removed also by the pumps, to suchan as to touch the bags proand f1.ooringjbutthepllmps would not work onix days out. ' . .... . , th/ltjlle ,pumps ,could have solid in so short a time, if they were properly cleared before the vessel sailed. After,a¢v,14 the water was removed without difficulty by hand pumps. NorIHri't: satiBfied that '(;n .·a trip the water-pipe valve, if in proper order at the beginning of the\l'oyage, could })a.ve become so much battered as to account for the amount of water found at the close of the frQm all the cir(}umstances, it seems tOtne,' is'that 't:ioth thEi,pumps and:tbe:valves in bad condition at of that when· it was found that the PlimpEldid n<:W'Vrol'k,:i'ellsonable CRrewas not exercised to ascertain the a.tttountof"W8:ter, In:thehold, or .to reroove it. by' other meRns, if the ptUbps werl:fstbP"i>ed. On:"bbth grounds the shipis liable to make good 80. muqh of the damages as did not arise from water cODling in from above. ". J; :, 'theOJigiflS1 'Charter was'a 'demise of the ship. and the charterers were 1ntlie positioh'bfOwners pro hac 'IiiCe.'The India, 14 Fed. RepA76, affitmed, '16 JFed.Bep.262j 'l!he Bombay. ,88 Fed.. Rep. 512. The subchttl'ter demis.eof thesbip; but a charter of affreightment only. For !gMdssDipped under the: I!lubcharter the master, or the original charterers, or their tttithOrizedagent, the supercargo, had authority to Sign any proper bill of4'ading, and that would bind the ship. Thill
I ," . ;

t}jbii Jut})'S "8iBe, arid:

was a common form of bill of and proper for the goods inquestion. But the liability of the ship would be the same without any bill of lading. The original charterers undertook to transport these goods; this was done by the authority and consent of the ship owners, for such \Vas. the very object of the charter. The ship: is, ,therefore, answerable for any negligence that causes damage to the goods, and is aJ;l.Swerable to the shtpper, or to his vendee, upon the implied contract to transfer safely, whetnera bill oflading is issued or not. The Water Witch, 19 How. Pt. 241, affirmed 1 Black, 494; The Peytrma, 2 Curt. 21,27 j The T. A. Goddard,, 12 Fed. Rep. 184, and cases there cited. . Decree for the. libelants, with costs, and an order of reference to compute the damages, if not agreed upon.

SORENSEN

et al.

tl. KEYSER.

(oercuu

Oourt of Appeals, Fifth OirlJUit. June 20, 1899.) NQ.28.

1. DEMURRAGE-LAY DAYS-DROUGHT-CONSTRUCTION OF CHAR'I'ER,'
   

Where a \lhip is chartered in Liverpool to carry a cargo of lumber from Ship 111land, and the charter party provides that "in the computation of cfays allowed- for . delivery should be excluded any time lost by reason ofdroughts, floods, and storms, or any other extraordinary occurrence, beyond the control of the charterer, " suoh exception does not apply to a drought existing at the time of the charter in the region of the Pascagoula river, and which prevented the cbarterer from obtaining the timber. but, which did not interfere with its delivery from Moss point, the usual place of preparing cargoes, and between which place and Ship island no drought could affect the delivery. 48 Fed. Rep. 117, reversed. ' Under the terms of the charter. demurrage was to be paid for each "working day beyond the days allowed for loading." Beld, that time lost by reason of storms before the beginning of the lay days, or after their expiration, could not be deducted in computing the demurrage.

2. SAHE-8TORMS.

8.

BAME-"WORltING DAYS" DEFINED.

The term "working days" in maritime affairs means a oalendar day on which the law permits work to be done. It excludes Sundays and legal holidays, but not stormy days.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi. In Admiralty. Libel by Jacob E. Sorensen and others, owners of the bark Urania, W. S. Keyser, for demurrage. The libel was dismissed, (see 48 Fed. Rep. 117,) and the libelants appealed. The case was then heard on motion of appellee to be allowed to take testimony as to the meaning of certain words in the charter party, which motion was overruled. 51 Fed. Rep. 30. The case is now on final hearing. Reversed. John D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for appellants. E. Hqward McCaleb and John O. Avery, for appellee.