
    *Jeremiah Burrows ads. Ambrose Reeves.
    The master of a vessel is only bound to use ordinary diligence in taking care of the boats belonging to and in use on board his vessel.
    And a seaman o'f the vessel is a competent witness to prove ordinary diligence, 
    
    Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1818. The plaintiff was master, and the defendant owner, of a vessel called the Young Sea Horse ; and this was an action to recover certain freight, which had been received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, and for which it was admitted,'he was liable. To this demand however he set up a discount, one item of which was the value of the boat belonging to the vessel, which had been delivered with her to the plaintiff, and which, it was admitted, had been lost.
    On the part of the plaintiff, it was alleged, that he was not answerable, as it had been lost without his fault. And to prove it, one of "the seamen was called, who was on board at the time. The competency of this witness was objected to, on the part of the plaintiff, on the ground that the seamen, as well as the master-, was liable for all losses which happened on board. The objection was overruled; and the witness stated that the boat was stolen from the vessel at night, while in the harbor of New York, although it had been well fastened and secured.
    On this evidence the presiding Judge decreed for the plaintiff, it being a case within the summary jurisdiction of the Court, disallowing the' defendant’s discount as to the boat; and a motion was made to reverse that decree, on the following grounds:
    1. Because the seaman (the witness,) was incompetent, by reason of interest.
    2. Because the master was liable for the value of the boat, at all events.
    
      Dunlcin, for the motion.
    
      
      
        Gas Co. v. City Council, 9 Rich. 347, 351.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Johnson, J.

' It is not necessary, in this casé, to enter into a minute* examination as to the nature of the interest which renders a witness incompetent; for it will be found, admitting the position assumed in the ground, that at most the witness, if at all liable to the defendant, stood in the same situation as to the pilaintiff, by whom he was called; and, not being a party to the suit, he was competent. Philips, 37-. And if liable to the plaintiff, it must arise out of his own individual negligence, in relation to the boat, which was not tlpe subject in issue between these parties, and he was therefore admissible.

The second ground is not distinctly comprehended, unless it is intended to have relation to that species of liability which arises out of an act of barratry, which can never exist, except when the act is done in violation of good faith ; and it is not pretended that the evidence in this case warrants such a conclusion. The plaintiff’s possession cannot be otherwise regarded than as a species of bailment within the class denominated locaiio conductto rei, in which ordinary diligence onlij is required of the bailee. ■ Jones on Bailment, 85. And the evidence shows that the greatest care and diligence were exercised.

I am, therefore, of opinion the motion ought to be dismissed.

Coecocic, Cheves and Richardson, JJ., concurred.  