Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/67

 RICHARDS V. HANSEN. 59 �ciently fastened, the subordinate court entered a verdict for the ship-owners, upon the ground that the loss was covered by the exception in the bill of lading. But the House of Lords, on appeal, reversed the judgment, and held that as in order to bring the loss within the exceptions it must be found that the ship sailed with the port in a seaworthy state, a new trial must be had, it not appearing that that fact had been found by the jury. Steel v. State lÀne Steamship Go. 37 Law Times, (N. S.) 333; Lyon v. Melh, 5 East. 428. �Two defects are suggested in the steamer, both of which, if they be defects, existed at the time the ship sailed : �First. That the construction of the ship, as already ex- plained, rendered her unfit to transport such a cargo on such a voyage at that season of the year. �Second. That the ceiling of the ship, in view of her peouliar construction, was not sufficient to protect such cargo from damage by sait -water in such a voyage during the winter months of the year, -when rough weather may reasonably be expected. �Eough weather, as ail experience shows, may be expected on such a voyage in the winter and early spring months of the year, but the respondents deny that the construction of the steamer rendered her unfit to transport such goods on such a voyage, and insist that her ceiling was properly con- structed and sufficient to protect such cargo, in the place where it was stowed, from damage by sait water, and from every peril within the contract of the bill of lading. When built the steamer was ceiled with a permanent ceilinj' up to her deck. It is claimed by the respondents that she had during the voyage, in addition to that, a temporary ceiling up to the turn of the bilge, but the evidence, taken as a whole, does not sustain that theory of fact. Even the master testi- fies that "she was ceiled ail the way up to the deck," but he says nothing ahout any such additional temporary ceiling as that supposed by the respondents. Surveyors examined the steamer in New York, and one of them speaks of the vessel as ceiled to the deck, but makes no mention of any tempo- rary ceiling of any kind. Proof that the steamer had no ��� �