Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/65

 EICHAEDS V. HANSEN. 57 �findings of the court below, as well as the legal prineiples applied in disposing of the case. i �Due shipment of the goods is net denied, nor is it eontro- verted that the steamer sailed from Liverpool, March 24, 1873, and that she arrived at Boston, her port of destination, April 14, in the same year. Certain exceptions are eontained in the bill of lading. At the time of the voyage the steamer ■\vas comparatively a new vessel, it appearing that she was built in October of the previous year. Competent expert witn esses in great numbers describe the construction of the steamer under deck as low-waisted forward of the poop, and express the opinion that she was unfit to make such a voyage during the winter months. They were asked to give the rea- sons for that conclusion, and answered to the eflfect that in such a construction as that desoribed the tendeucy in rough weather would be to fill the waist with water, and to cause the vessel to strain and roll deep and heavy. When asked what effect the straining of the vessel would have upon her ceiling in the lower hold, the answer was that if the vessel labored heavily it would cause her to blow; that the deeper the ship rolls the higher she will blow the water in her bilge, particu- larly if her ceiling is not water-tight. Sheet iron, ail agere, is quite susceptible to damage from being wet, and some of the expert witnesses testify that a drop of sea water will dam- age a shoet of the iron, and that it would. take very little water to go throiigh a whole package of such merchandise. Apart from the construction of the steamer, including her ceiling, no attempt is made to show that she was unseaworthy. Beyond doubt, she was comparatively new, and was staunch and strong. Nor is'it pretended that the damage to the cargo resulted from any defects in the huU of the vessel or in her equipment, beyond what is embraced in the charge that her construction in the particulars mentioned exposed the vessel to unusual strain in bad weather, and tended to make her roll unusually deep and heavy. �Argument to show that the vessel, when she rolls deep and heavy, is more likely to blow and expose cargo stowed in her aft lower hold to wet, is quite nnuecessary, as the conclu- ��� �