Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/670

 BBRTELLOTB V. PABT OB' OAEGQ OF BRIMSTONB. 663 �It was at Locust Point that the principal detention took place. The libellant alleges that it resulted in great part from the want of a sufficient number of oarts, and the con- stant delays in waiting for them. On this point there is some contradiction of testimony, but I think the preponderance is in favor of the respondents. The principal losa of time arose from the consignee refusing on parts of two days to reçoive the brimstone, alleging that the weather was too windy, and that 80 much of the brimstone was blown away in dumping it from the ship into the carts that he was subjeoted to loss, A further delay was in consequence of disputes, on two days^ with the master, with regard to the payment of freight, result- ing in his f orbidding the discharging to continue until he was paid. Deducting the time lost from these two causes, and the average resuit per day does not tend to sustain the alle- gations with regard to the want of carts, contradicted as they are very positively by several intelligent witnesses. The respondents have proved that it is the oustom of this port to stop discharging cargoes of brimstone when there is a high wind, as it is a substance liable to be blown away in the handling necessary to unladen it from a ship. �In a charter such as the ona in this case the owner of the vessel is bound by the customs of the port to whioh he con- tracts to carry the cargo. This custom is proved, and it seems to me not an unreasonable one, although, undoubtedly, it is one likely to lead to disputes and possibly to abuse. The loss entailed on the consignee, which would justify the sus- pension of the' unlading, should not be a trifling one, but should be in some measure commensurato with the usual loss from detention to which the vessels ordinarily bringing such cargoes to the port would be subjected. With regard to the violence of the wind on those days when the discharging was suspended, there is some confiict of testimony, but the testi- mony on behalf of the respondents is positive, while that of the master of the vessel is not convincing. The libellant, to corroborate his statement, produced the master of another Italian vessel, hich was discharging brimstone on the oppo- site side of the harbor at the same time, and proved by him ����