44 FEDERAL REPORTER.
rangement is essential to safety, and when employed renders an ac-
` cident, such as befel the libelant, impossible. On the occasion in-
volved, the provision for securing the draw was out of order, and use-
less. Had this not been so the accident would not have occurred.
The character of the weather, at the time, made the defective con-
dition of the bridge especially important.
That it was the respondents duty to keep the bridge in repair is
not questioned. Failing to discharge this duty, it became liable for
the loss thus occasioned. The defect existed for many months. After
so great a lapse of time it should have been discovered without no-
tice. The exercise of proper vigilance would have discovered it much
earlier. The testimony shows, however, that the respondent was noti-
lied of its existence long before the accident. The cases cited by re-
spondent’s counsel are inapplicable to the facts here involved.
I find no evidence of contributory fault in the libelant. _
A decree must be entered accordingly for the libelant. `
THE N EW ORLEANs.*
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ENGRAVING & MANUF’G C0. v. THE NEW OR-
LEANs. -
(Oircuit Oourt, E'. D. Louisiana. December 31, 1885.)
1. Camus}: or- Goons BY WA1·En—Bn.r, or LADING—EXCEPTIONB m.
K An exception in a bill of lading that the carrier shall not be liable for loss
. or damage from heat is lawful, and is binding on the shipper to the extent
that thereby the carrier shall not be dischargedfrom the consequences of his
own neglect or misconduct.
2. SAME—BURDEN or- Pnoor AB ro NEGLIGENCE or CARRIER.
The preponderance of American authority is said to be in favor of the rule
in England that refuses to presume negligence where none is shown, and con·
siders the carrier is excused upon his showing that the loss arose from a cause
for which, according to his contract, he was not to be held responsible.
8. SAME—GOODS Nor Snrrrnn on Dncx.
’ If bill of lading be silent as to mode of storing, goods must be carried un-
der deck; and if goods were carried on deck and lost or damaged, the carrier
would not be allowed to prove lily parol a consent by the shipper to the deck
storage. Hence a notice marke on the goods that they were to be carried
on deck, not called to the attention of the carrier, and not mentioned in the
bill of lading, ought not to increase the carrier’s responsibility.
Admiralty Appeal.
W. S. Benedict, for libelant.
E. W. Huntington, for claimant.
PARDEE, J. The case shows that the damage to the libelant’s goods
resulted from heat, but does not show how and where the heat origi—
*Reported by Joseph _P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.