CAEA.0 V, GUIMARAES. 'TSS �for the ship's delay after the berth was procured on December l&t. But as Bome time must have been taken in such removal, I add one day's detention for this cause, making in all six days, which, at the rate of $51 par day, the rate agreed on, gives $306, with interest from December 6, 1879, for which the libellants are entitled to judg- ment; but as their claim was in part upon a basis not sustained, and another portion of it, viz., that for loss of freight, was abandoned, costs should not be allowed. �See Reed v. Well, 6 Fed. Rep, 304. ���CaBAO V. GUIMABAES.* �iSiilrict Cowrt, B. D. Penntylvania. December 12, 1881.) �1. BHrppiKG— Fkeight Money, Rbcovbby of. �In a bill of lading reciting "the weight and quantity unknown ; not account- able for the cork on deck and burating of bundles, several of which open for stowage," the obligation as respects delivery in ' ■ good condition " la sn obliga- tion for proper stowage according to the usual custom of stowing such cargo ; and where the weight of evidence justifies the belief that this custom was com- plied with, and delivery of the cargo was proved, held, that the master was entitled to recover the freight money. �Libel by the master of the bark Samuele against Jose de Bessa Guimaraes to recover freight on 800 baies of cork-wood. The bill of lading recited "the weight and quality unknown ; not aceountable for the cork on deck and bursting of bundles, several of which open for stowage." Eespondent defended on the grounds (1) that there was a short delivery; (2) that the cork was injured by being stowed in contact with sait, which formed the balance of the cargo, when the custom was to separate it from the sait by mats or boards; (3) that the captain had unwarrantably eut open a large number of baies, to the great injury of the cork. The testimony was conflicting as to the delivery, the custom of stowage, and as to the necessity for cut- ting the baies. �John G. Johnson, for libellant. �Chas. Gibbons, Jr., for respondent. �Butler, D. J. The claim is for freight for carrying cork-wood. The defence set up is (1) short delivery ; (2) unwarranted cutting of �*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �
