with esparto grass, which is very light, to call at a Spanish iron-ore port and load with ore. Accordingly the "Westphalia," after loading her part cargo of esparto grass at Oran, sailed to Huelva, an ironore port near Cadiz. At Oran she took on board sixty tons of coal, having at the time on board, as was supposed, about fifty-five tons more. She arrived safely at Huelva, and there the engineer reported to the master, erroneously, as it afterwards appeared, that she had 80 tons of coal on board, a quantity which would have been amply sufficient for the voyage to Garston. But after leaving Huelva for Garston the ship encountered bad weather, and the supply of coal was found to be insufficient to complete the voyage. She was put back with the view of making a port in the north of Spain and getting a supply of coals. In making this attempt the ship went ashore on the north coast of Spain, and she and her cargo were lost. In an action by the owners of the esparto grass for non-delivery of the same, which it was alleged had been lost by reason of the vessel's unseaworthiness, it was held that the warranty of seaworthiness was broken, and that the shipowner was not relieved from liability by the exception in the charter-party. Lord Esher, M. R., following the rule laid down by Parke, B. in Dixon v. Sadler,1 and quoted by him in Biccard v. Shepherd," that "if the voyage be such as to require a different complement of men, or state of equipment, in different parts of it, as, if 15 M. & W. 405. 214 Moo. P. C. 471. it were a voyage down a canal or river, and thence across to the open sea,"-in this case as if the voyage were from Oran to Huelva, and thence to Garston-"it would be enough if the vessel were, at the commencement of each stage of the navigation, properly manned and equipped for it," said:"whether in this case the unseaworthiness-that is to say, the failure to provide sufficient coals-at Huelva, was due to the negligence of the master or crew cannot affect the liability of the shipowner, under the warranty of seaworthiness, which is absolute; in either view, therefore, of what the voyage here was, there has been a breach of warranty." And Fry, L. J. observed:-" The law imposes upon the shipowner a warranty of seaworthiness for the entire voyage, and he cannot escape liability under it, because the voyage, either by the contract or from the physical conditions, is divided into stages." There is no understanding on the part of the shipowners that the vessel which he charters shall be free from suspicion of unseaworthiness or any other matter. So where the shipowner, the plaintiff, had taken on board a vessel chartered by the defendants a quantity of antimony, for which freight was paid as merchandise, but which was stored as ballast, leaving to the charterers the full space of the vessel to be filled by them with tea and other goods. Evidence was given by the defendants for the purpose of shewing that the antimony in question was injurious to the tea, and created a suspicion Owner bound to provide a ship cargo. against the ship. The Court held, that if the ship was really fit to receive on board a cargo there was no undertaking on the part of the owner of the ship that the vessel should be free from 'suspicion, and that by undertaking that the vessel shall be seaworthy at the time of receiving the cargo, he does not undertake that the vessel shall be free from suspicion of unseaworthiness. It may so happen that when the vessel arrives at port there may be a general belief that she is unseaworthy or unfit to receive a cargo on board, which would be a prejudice to the charterer, but the circumstance of that suspicion could not affect the plaintiff's right to receive the cargo on board. The ship must not only be seaworthy before loadfit to carry the ing, but she must be seaworthy with the cargo the shipowner undertakes to carry. Thus, in Stanton v. Richardson, the shipowner, having given the merchant the option of shipping a cargo of several descriptions of goods, including "wet" sugar, and having supplied a ship which was suitable for carrying any of the goods named except "wet" sugar, but which was unseaworthy with a full cargo of wet sugar, was held to have broken his contract. Brett, J. said:"The shipowner must provide a ship reasonably fit to carry a reasonable cargo of the kind specified in the charter." Cockburn, C. J. in whose judgment the rest of the judges, who heard the case in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, 1 Towse v. Henderson, 19 L. J. Ex. 163. concurred, said: "The shipowner was bound, I think, under this charter-party to have his ship.fit to take a cargo of wet sugar." And in the House of Lords, Lord Cairns said:-"The charter-party must be read. Ias if it were a charter for a full and complete cargo of wet sugar if that be so, what is the obligation as regards the ship upon the shipowner? Clearly to provide a ship which is reasonably suited to carry that particular cargo." In coal and petroleum charters and occasionally Ventilation. in charters of grain and cereals, a clause is inserted providing for the ventilation of the cargo and fumigation of the vessel, viz: "The ship is to be properly ventilated at owner's cost." "The vessel's hold to be sufficiently ventilated as customary." "The hatches to be opened during the voyage for the purpose of ventilation in fine weather, but only during mid-day hours." "Should steamer carry any creosoted sleepers or petroleum, she is to be fumigated to the satisfaction of charterer's agents." As agent for the shipowner the master is bound to receive the cargo, to stow it properly, and to ventilate it when necessary.1 Grain cargoes, when stowed in the ship's hold, become heated and give off a vapour, which ascends 1 Davidson v. Gwynne, 12 East 381; Tronson v. Dent, 8 Moo. P. C. 419; Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 7 Q. B. 225. Petroleum damage. and condenses under the deck and at the sides of the hold. Damage therefore frequently ensues through the vice of the cargo, and though the dunnage is complete and perfect, on discharge it is found that owing to the great natural heat of the grain, an absorption from the water in the limbers and sweat of the hold has taken place, and that some of the bags on the lower tier are damaged. Ventilation and removal of the hatches during the voyage, will to a certain extent remove this damage and if the vessel is efficient for the conveyance of the grain, and the master has not been guilty of negligence, the shipowner will not be liable for damages arising from these natural causes. In the case of the Barque "Carlotta," which took a cargo of almonds from Barcelona to New York, having previously discharged a cargo of petroleum. On arrival at New York it was found that a portion of the cargo had been damaged by contact with petroleum, and other portions were scented with petroleum. Before leaving Barcelona the "Carlotta" had been cleansed and fumigated for the purpose of removing the scent of petroleum; one of the conditions in the charter-party being "vessel to be cleansed as customary previous to loading homeward cargo." In an action by the owner against the charterers for freight, a counter claim was brought on the bills of lading for damage done to the almonds by its contact with petroleum, 13 Asp. M. L. C. N. S. 456. |