Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/99

 EEBOSENI! LAUP EEITBB 00. V, FIBHBB. 91 �deck, it is difficult to see any ground upon which to hold that negligence bas been proved. �It is said that the deals were so placed as to create the belief in any one required to go into the between-decks that a deck had been constructed there, and that the responsibil- ity is therefore the same as if an improper and unsafe deck had in fact been constructed there. But, whatever niight be the responsibility in such a case, no such case is made out by the evidence. The deals were not so placed as to justify the libellant in believing that he was proceeding upon a deck. The deals were rough, they were laid loosely without any, fastening whatever, and, according to the evidence, were not evenly laid, but in some places lapped one upon another; moreover, the spaces between the stanchions were open. These openings were plainly visible, and were notice to ail who might go upon the deals that they were not upon a deck. �The case is that of a use, by the libellant, of the deals for a purpose for which they were not intended, without neces- sity, and with fair notice from the manner in which they lay that they were not intended to be so used. �Such a case is not one in which it can be held that the injuries to the libellant were caused by negligence on the part of the ship owner, or of those entrusted with the care and management of the ship. �The libel must therefore be dismissed, and with costs. ���Keeobbne Lamp Heateb Company v. Fisheb. �{Oireuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 20, 1880.) �Patent Case — Practicb. — Modes of proceeding before a master to wliom a patent case has been referred. �LowBLL, J. Some questions are raised relating to the modes of proceeding before a master to whom a patent case has been referred, in certain particulars in which the prac- tice of different masters is said to differ, and I have consulted with Judge Nelson as to the answers which should be given. ��� �