THE ST. PATRICK. 127 �similar chemicals. That injury would be caused thereby, the carrier was bound to knovr. He was familiar with soda-ash, and bleaching powders, had carri^d them before, and knew their tendency to damage almost all other kinds of merchan- dise, placed near them. He was, therefore, guilty of negli- gence in thus stowing the cargo. His answer that "the vessel met with heavy weather, whieh caused the cargo to work," is not important, at this time. Without such weather injury must have resulted. Whether additional injury was caused by the weather, for which the respondent is not liable under the terms of his contract, must be inquired into hereafter, when the eillent of the liability is under consideration, and all other facts bearing on this question have been ascertained. The same must be said respeeting the answer that Lima wood is bf great value, and a delicate nature, liable to extraordinary injury from contact with soda-ash and bleaching powders, is a rare article of commerce, was unknown to the respondent, and that he should therefore have been informed respeeting it. He believed it to be logwood, and says he would have stowed it elsewhere and covered it with canvas, if he had known what it was. That it might have been carried safely in general ships with the chemicals, is not questioned. Had it been logwood, as the respondent supposed, or any other description of dye-wood, it must necessarily have been in- jured by immediate contact with the chemicals. He cannot, therefore, escape liability. He did not need other information than he had,'to know that such stowage was improper. To this extent he took the risk, and must answer the conse- quences. Whether he is liable for such extraordinary injury as resulted from the peculiar character, and value of the Lima wood — of which he was uninformed, need not be oonsidered at this time. A decree will be entered against him, and a commissioner appointed to hear the parties and report the extent and amount of damage and loss, properly ascribable to the respondent'fl negligence in stowing the cargo as he did. ��� �
