
    SEAGER v. NEW YORK & C. MAIL STEAMSHIP CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 23, 1893.)
    1 Demurrage — Delivery of Cargo — Customary Dispatch — Wharf Facilities.
    A charterer who is bound to furnish facilities for discharging “with customary dispatch” is not liable for demurrage when the delay is caused by want of space on the dock, caused solely by the ship’s attempting, without orders from the charterer, to keep separate tile bales belonging to different consignees. 55 Fed. Rep. 324, affirmed.
    2. Shipping — Discharging Cargo — Expense of Piling — Usage of Port-Charter Party.
    The custom of the port of New York, requiring a vessel discharging hemp to pile the bales on the dock for one-half its width and the length of the vessel, is not inconsistent with a clause of a charter party providing that “cargo shall be received and delivered alongside of the vessel * * * within reach of her tackles,” and the charterer is not liable to the’ vessel for the expense of such piling. 55 Fed. Rep. 324, affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Hew York.
    In Admiralty. Libel by John C. Seager against the Hew York & Cuba Mail Steamship Company for demurrage and for extra compensation for handling freight. The court below dismissed the hill. See 55 Fed. Rep. 824, for the opinion of Judge Brown, in which the facts are fully stated. Libelant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. P. Kirlin and E. B. Convers, for appellant.
    Geo. H. Balkam, for appellee.
    Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

1. Without expressing an opinion as to the precise meaning to he given to the clause in this charter party providing that the vessel “discharge with customary dispatch,” we concur with the district judge in his conclusions that whatever delay there was for which demurrage is claimed “arose solely from the ship’s attempt to keep separate not merely the bales belonging to the different consignees, hut the different lots of the same consignee, according to the different marks;” that no such instructions were given by the charterers, and that for delay consequent upon such attempt they are not chargeable.

2. As to the claim for expense of piling, we do not think the custom of the port, which was abundantly proved, requiring the vessel to pile the hemp on the dock for one-half its width and the length of the vessel, is inconsistent with the printed clause of the charter party providing that “cargo shall be received and delivered alongside of the vessel * * * within reach of her tackles.”

The decree of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.  