884 federal befobteb. �The Golden Eule.* (Ctreuit Court, B. D, Louitiana. November 18, 1881.) �1, CONTRACTS— EVIDENCE. �Paroi evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract. �2. CoMMON CarbieIi— Delat in Delivebt— Damages, �In the ordinary case of delay by a common carrier in deliverlng goods, the measure of damages is the difference in their market value at the time when actually delivered and 'when they should have been delivered. �In Admiralty. �I. R. Beckwith and E. D. Craig, for libellant. �B. Egan, for claimants. �Pabdee, g. J. This is a suit brought on a bill of lading to recover damages for the failure to deliver in time the goods shipped. The first question is as to whether the defendants had the right to disre- gard the bill of lading because of representations said to have been made by the drayman who delivered the goods to the steam-boat, to the steam-boat olerk, f ollowing which the goods were stowed as through freight for New Orleans, and not as way freight ; so that when the proper landing was reached the gopds could not be landed without ■great trouble and delay. The goods were, theref ore, not landed on the down trip of the boat, but were landed on the return trip, causing a delay of about eight days. Such a defence cannot be listened to, as otherwise every bill of lading could be altered or varied by the recol- leotions of a steam-boat mate, or the. interference of disinterested pt.rties. The carrying contract, reduced to writing in a bill of lading, can no more be altered or varied by paroi evidence than any other writtein contract. See The Delaware, 14 Wall. 579. But, outside of this, unauthorized parties certainly cannot change the contract be- tween the ship and the shipper, , �The other question is as to the rule of damages. The freight shipped was about 140 wheelbarrows, and the libellant claims that, at the place of landing, he had a contract or job to repair or build a levee, with 125 men in waiting to use the wheelbarrows; and that during the delay the men could not work; and that libellant was compelled to keep and support the men at an expanse of $1.25 each per day, thereby being damaged to that extent by the negligent failure of the defendant boat to deliver the freight in time. A statement of libellant's claim seems to decide it against him, particularly as there is no showing whatever that the defendant boat was in anywisa �*Keported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar. ��� �
