ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

case marked' R. E. 25' was recovered; under an outside layer of quill pens it contained 100,000 percussion caps.

Proportionate Tonnage. 17 tuns of oil, of 252 gallons each, weigh 18 tons, and will occupy 850 cubic feet or 1 keel. When Mediterranean wheat is freighted at 1s. quarter, oil in casks should be 7s. 6d. tun of 252 gallons.

Tonnage for Freight. 250 gallons Ceylon oil in casks, measuring about 60 cubic feet, go to the ton; in tanks 50 cubic feet. At New York and Baltimore, 200 gallons (wine measure), reckoning the full contents of the cask. Bengal and Madras ton 20 cwt. in cases; Bengal any kind in casks 20 cwt.; Madras 210 imperial gallons. Bombay ton in casks, 50 cubic feet. In China, a case of aniseed oil containing 1 pecul, measures 5.16 feet; half a pecul 2·564 feet; pecul Cassia oil 5-45, and half a pecul 2.80 feet.

FOREIGN OIL MEASURES.

[blocks in formation]

Candia (Mediter

CANDIA.-In ranean) oil is measured by the mistate 2.456 gallons.

CERIGO (IONIAN ISLANDS).-A barile 14.0298 gallons.

DENMARK.-A last 224 lbs. net. HAMBURG.-1 English imperial gallon olive oil is about 8 lbs. Hamburg weight, 1 tun fish oil imperial usually renders 58 Hamburg steckans; see coffee.

ITALY.-A frasco is less than 4 pints; a rubbio 47 lbs.; Rome, a barile 15 185; Palermo, the caffiso= 4 English gallons; Venice, the orna is divided into 100 lire, and is equal to 14:29 imperial gallons; the botta contains 2 migliaje, or 80 miri of 25 lbs. peso grosso; a miro=4.028 English wine gallons; Florence, a barile 9.6338 gallons; Genoa, 17.083 gallons; Lucca, a coppo 200 lbs. nearly.

INDIA. A garce contains 400 marcals 9.256 lbs.; Malabar, 33 gallons make a choradany; Travancore, 30 choradaines make 1 candy of 8-203 gallons.

LISBON.-A balde is the tenth of a pipe; a last 4 pipes.

MALAGA.-A bota is 43, and a pipe 35 arrobas; the latter weighs about 160 lbs. avoirdupois; the arroba 4-19 English wine gallons; a last= 4 boats or 5 pipes 5 pipes Pedro Ximenes.

MALTA.-A quartruccio=1 wine quart; the caffiso 5 English gallons, some say 4.580 gallons; the barrel is double the caffiso; some say 9 gallons.

ROTTERDAM.-A last 4 casks olive oil or 7 casks whale oil.

SARDINIA.-A pot 17 pints.

SPAIN.-A quartella 0-829 gallons, the arroba 2-78 gallons, is divided into quartillos or 100 panillas-the standards of the arroba are 34 libras of water, and 25 of oil; libra 1.0144 lbs.; Cadiz botta 381 arrobas pipe 34 arrobas.

TRIPOLI.-A carraffi 34 lbs. ; mattaro 47 lbs.

8

TURKEY.-The alma or meter= 1 gallon 3 pints English wine measure; weight 8 okes or 22 lbs. avoirdupois.

Oils are in some foreign places sold by spirit and wine measure, which see.

797. OILCAKE is the remains of various seeds after they have been pressed for the extraction of their oil. In bulk, oilcake should

be placed by itself; in bags or casks it may be put on dry goods, but they should be well matted where necessary, for if the weather be close and warm the oil will perforate through the sacking. Oilcake may cause spontaneous combustion if its exhalations reach cotton, hemp, jute, &c. If placed too near the ceiling, although the ship may not leak, the cakes will draw dampness from the wood; at the same time they may leave a dampness in the wood not easily removed. In the case of the Sir T. Graham, M'ANDREW v. LIDGETT, Queen's Bench, March, 1854, it was held to be not proper stowage to fill up the spaces between the casks of turpentine with oilcake, which caused the casks to shrink and leak on and injure barrels of currants below. The ship Figlia Maggiore, Capt. G. MILLOSEVICH (a general ship), left New York, June 26th, 1865, for London, with a cargo including 556 hogsheads tobacco, 18,000 staves, 40 cases merchandise, and 1,000 barrels oilcake. The goods were mixed together, the oilcake was found damaged on arrival, and an action was brought in the Admiralty Court, 21st April, 1868. Sir R. PHILLIMORE, in delivering judgment for plaintiff, said that the mould in these oilcakes was from the edges to the centre-the usual indication that the mischief had been produced by external heat. Tobacco and oilcake were both heat-producing.

798. The schooner Fairy, belonging to Boston, Lincolnshire, which registers 141 tons, loaded in December, 1864, at Marseilles, 212 tons of ground-nut oilcake, which became heated on the passage to Plymouth, where she arrived 12th January, 1865. The heating was ascribed to being shipped in a green state, as the steam from the entire cargo settled against the decks and then dropped; the upper part suffered most. The Fairy is sharply built, and has in the hold a permanent platform fixed on her two sister keelsons; it is 17 inches above the floor; thick single mats were laid on the platform against the sides to receive the oilcake. She drew 13 feet aft, and 11 feet 10 inches forward. With 230 tons of coal, 13 feet aft, 12 feet forward; best trim at sea, 12 feet aft, and 10 feet 7 inches forward. Her nut cake was extracted from ground nuts, partly manufactured at Marseilles; the remainder came from other Mediterranean ports. Capt. GODLEY considers that nut cake is very liable to become heated; rape-seed cake will, if new, but not so quickly as nut cake; and linseed cake less than either. The Fairy's port charges at Marseilles were-Pilotage in and out 44f. 10c.; excise on ship's stores, &c., 17f. 50c.; health office 14f.; harbour boat as agreed 10f.; clearing in and out (140 tons) 60f.; telegram 10f. 50c.; opening bridge twice 22f.; sundries 66ƒ. 90c.; total 244f.; consulate 15s.; steve

dore's charge 4d. ton. For discharging pitch 3 sous per ton per man-four men employed. The charge for cooking ashore is 11f. per day per ship.

799. Bones. The Court of Admiralty, 4th March, 1870, before Sir R. J. PHILLIMORE. Mr. MILWARD and Mr. COHEN for the plaintiffs; and Mr. BUTT and Mr. E. C. CLARKSON for defendants. On the 3rd of September, 1868, Messrs. CAMPBELL and THAYER, of New York, shipped 3,000 bags of oilcake on board the Freedom, consigned to Messrs. SIMMONS and HUNT, of Mark-lane. Only about 300 bags were delivered in good condition. Plaintiffs claimed as consignees of the goods and assignees of the bills of lading. The defence raised was that the plaintiffs had no title to sue for negligence; that they could not sue as consignees in contract; and that the damage was occasioned by the dangers of the sea. The hearing occupied several days, and the Court having taken time to consider the decision, now gave judgment.

Sir R. PHILLIMORE was of opinion that, following the decisions of the Court in recent cases, plaintiffs had a locus standi as to negligence, breach of contract, and also for the loss sustained by them in consequence of an improper mode of delivery. With regard to the non-delivery according to marks and numbers, defendants denied. that they were bound to sort and weigh the goods on the ship before delivery. It was proved that the delivery according to marks and numbers was demanded by the consignees and refused by the master. Plaintiffs, under the terms of the bills of lading, were entitled to have the goods so delivered, and as that was refused, they were entitled to compensation for any loss sustained by reason of such refusal; but the really important question in the case related to the liability of the owners for the state of deterioration in which it was proved the cake was when it arrived. The fact of the damage having been proved, the burden of proving affirmatively that such damage was within the excepted perils, or that it was due to the intrinsic properties of the cake, was upon defendants. It had been admitted that the cake was in good order when it was put on board at New York; and the Court was satisfied upon the evidence that the amount of deterioration was not due to any inherent vice or intrinsic property. With respect to the contention that the damage was caused by the perils of the sea, the question arose, what was a peril of the sea? It was admitted that bad ventilation, defective stowage, the neighbourhood of a heating cargo, or a distant heating cargo of such a nature as would throw off heat to affect the whole cargo, would not fall within the category of peril of the sea. But it was contended

that sea-water, the warmth of the water in the Gulf Stream, and a state of weather which rendered it necessary to keep the hatches closed during a portion of the voyage, and the condensation of steam consequent therefrom, were the causes of the damage, and that these causes fell within the category of excepted sea peril. The evidence as to the weather was not what the Court could desire; the log-book of the ship was not produced at the hearing, and it did not appear that any protest was made against the damage to cargo caused by bad weather. A portion of the cargo consisted of bones; it was admitted by the master that when he arrived in England some of the bones were moist and mouldy, and another witness said they were covered with fungus called "stinking fungus." His lordship then said-Looking to the facts proved with respect to the condition of these bones, and to the opinion of experts on the inferences of science applicable to such a state of things, I have arrived at the conclusion that the damage to the oilcake was caused in great measure, at least, by the presence of these bones on board the ship. But this conclusion does not appear to me necessary for my judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, it was incumbent upon the defendants to show that the extensive damage done to their cargo was caused by "dangers of the sea," which is the only exception contained in the bill of lading. I think that upon the evidence before me they have failed to do so, and on both grounds, therefore, I pronounce for the prayer of the plaintiffs, and make the usual reference to the registrar and merchants.-Judgment accordingly.

800. Stowage and Delivery. SIMMONDS V. DRIVER. Common Pleas, 12th November, 1862, American ship Daniel Webster. Before Mr. Justice WILLES. An action for loss sustained through the improper stowage of oilcake shipped at New York, and also for delay in delivery. Defendant pleaded that there had been no negligence on the part of the ship, and that the loss arose from the perils of the sea. Plaintiffs were oilcake merchants, and defendant was master, and according to plaintiffs it appeared that towards the close of 1861, 500 bags and 40 barrels oilcake consigned to them, were shipped in the Daniel Webster, and on her arrival in London docks it was found that about 70 tons of the oilcake in bags were damaged through being wetted and becoming heated, and a quantity of wheat getting mixed with it. It was alleged that this could only arise from the cake being improperly stowed, and in too close proximity to the wheat, in bulk, where it would be more likely to get heated, and that if ordinary care had been taken the cake would neither have been heated nor the grain driven into it. The loss was estimated at £1 a ton. There was also a further claim for compensation upon the ground that defendant had not delivered the cake within a reasonable time, that the lighterman had applied for the consignment, and that had ordinary dispatch been used, it might have been delivered much earlier. In consequence of this delay, plaintiffs lost the market The defence was, that the oilcake was stowed in the usual and proper manner, in the after part of the

main hold, and that the damage arose from the perils of the sea, which came within the exceptions of the bill of lading. The cargo was stowed by the usually appointed stevedores, and there was a bulkhead two inches thick between the wheat in bulk and the after hold, and the cake. The ship left 20th December, and on the 25th, in a heavy gale, she strained, and made considerable water. On the 31st, another heavy gale threw the ship on her beam ends; she remained so until noon, 2nd January, labouring with her lee rails under water. She had a list of from four to five streaks on the port side. When righted she had 22 inches of water in the hold and the cargo had shifted. The water which she made kept in the bilge when the ship listed over, and so must have got to the cargo. Capt. BOWERS, inspector in the London Dock, stated that the ship appeared to have had very bad weather. A bulkhead divided the wheat from the oilcake, and it was thought that the heavy straining must have caused it to yield, and so have allowed the grain to pass through with the water to the cake. Some peas and hops were also damaged by sea-water. Those who assisted in unloading spoke of the cargo as having been properly stowed: and with regard to the delay in the delivering, it was stated that the discharge of a ship of the tonnage of the Daniel Webster occupied from three weeks to a month, and that all expedition had been used in the delivery. Mr. Justice WILLES said the jury would determine whether the loss arose from bad stowage or from perils of the sea. If they should be of opinion that the damage did not arise from the oilcake being improperly stowed, defendant would not be liable; but they would have to consider another ground of complaint, and that was, that the cake had not been delivered within a reasonable time after the ship arrived in dock. If they should come to the conclusion that the loss had resulted from bad stowage the second question would not arise; but if they should not, then they would say whether the goods had been delivered within a reasonable time, and if not they would fix the amount of damages. The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs on the point that the cake had not been delivered within a reasonable time. Damages £15 17s. His lordship said the verdict would be for defendant on the count for bad stowage.

801. Alleged Unseaworthiness. Norfolk Circuit, Norwich, August, 1865. WATLING V. WILLIAMS. Plaintiff was a merchant at Great Yarmouth, and defendant master and part owner of the brigantine George, of Caernarvon. Mr. O'MALLEY, Q.C., stated that the question to be decided was, who should be made to bear the losses arising from that to which he was free to admit neither party was in the least to blame. On the 12th November, defendant's vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of oilcake from Marseilles to Yarmouth. When she arrived and as the cargo was being unshipped, the oilcake on the port side was found to have been considerably injured by water. Plaintiff was sent for, and he went on board with defendant and other persons, and found the oilcake in such a state that it had to be dug out. The lower part of the deck was not only saturated and marked by the oozing of the water, but the water was traced down the lower tiers, and eventually it was discovered that the damage had arisen from an oversight. The vessel was built at Prince Edward's Island, and it was well known in the trade that, speaking generally, caulking was not securely done there. Owing to this defect the water had run through a hole about an inch long, in the port side, and thus destroyed the cake, and whilst proceeding with the unloading, they found another portion of the cake in the same state, caused by the water flowing through an aperture in the starboard side. Plaintiff estimated the damage at nearly £100.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »