Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/929

914 FEDERAL REPORTER. �interested in the cargo, requested permission to examine the stowap;e which was not granted. �During the voyage a slight leak became evident — from some caus( unknown. It was sufficient to require from iive to ten minutes' spell at the pumps every four hours, — not an unusual thing, as Capt. Spencer testifies, — which did not make the ship in the least unsea- worthy. After the discharge of the vessel it was found to arise from what is known as a "private leak" — a slight defeot in one of the outer planks of the ship. Its position was such that no sea water could have gained access to the cargo, whi«h was proteoted by the inner ceiling, and I am satisfied that thie had nothing to do with the injury to the wool. �The claimants received the wool in a good condition for trauspor- tation aa common carriers; they were bound to deliver it with ont injury, except from perils of the sea. It was clearly proved that 120 baies were seriously damaged when delivered in New York. This in- jury occurred while the wool was on board ship. It was not incum- bent upon the libellants, therefore, in the first instance to prove the particular cause of the injury. The burden of proof is upon the claimants to show, in exoneration of their liability, that the injury arose by some peril of the sea within the exceptions of the bill of lading. �In Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 280, the court say: "After the dam- age to the goods has been established the burden lies upon the re- spondents to show that it was oocasioned by one of the perils from which they were exempted by the bill of lading;" and if brought "within one of the accidents or dangers of navigation, it is compe- tent to the shippers to show that it might have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention; for then it is not deemed to be, in the sense of the law, such a loss as will exempt the carrier from liability, but rather a loss occasioned by his negligence and in- attention tohisduty." r/ifiSafciowceWo, 7Ben. 357; The Black Hawk, i> Ben. 207. �As regards the 24 baies I think the evidence discloses suffi cient probability of injury through sea water from perils of the sea to acquit them of responsibility for that part of the damage. The Neptune, 6 Blatchf. 193.' As to the 76 baies, I think their defence is not made out. The peculiar nature of this injury in the caking and rotting of particular portions of the baies shows that it could not well have arisen in any other way than by direct contact with wet wood, or by ��� �