
    THE FLAMBOROUGH. SWITZERLAND MARINE INS. CO. v. THE FLAMBOROUGH.
    (District Court, S. D. New York.
    May 23, 1895.)
    Injury to Freight—Inspection under Harter Act.
    Cargo having been damaged through defects of the carrying steamer which could have been ascertained by proper inspection and examination, held, that the inspection 'that was made was not such as “due diligence” under the “Harter Act” requires; and held, that the shipowners were chargeable with any negligence of their agents appointed to inspect the steamer.
    This action was brought by the Switzerland Marine insurance Company to recover losses sustained by its assured through jettison to and damage of cargo occasioned by a leak in the steamer Flamborough.
    The Flamborough had taken cargo at New York for transportation to West Indian ports and when two days out encountered bad weather, and a few hours later began to leak. Thereupon some goods were jettisoned, but the leak continuing the steamer returned to New York. She was then docked for examination and it was found that 17 of her plates were worn out and that the leak had occurred through one of the plates wasting. The steamer was 27 years old and had been purchased from her former owners five months previous to the voyage. Her new owners were not familiar with shipping and at the time of purchase caused' the steamer to be examined by an inspector on their behalf. After purchasing, they placed her under the management of an experienced agent in New York and did not themselves take part in such management. The steamer was not docked at the time of purchase, nor at any time subsequent thereto before the voyage upon which the damage arose. The condition of the plates was such that an examination upon a dock, or a careful examination while the vessel was afloat would have disclosed their weakness.
    Stillman & Hubbard and Mr. Mynderse, for libelant.
    Wing, Putnam & Burlingham, for tbe Flamborough.
   BROWN, District Judge.

The condition of the vessel, 27 years old, is proved by Mr. Congdon’s examination to have been so worn in her plates and unserviceable that Í find the inspection theretofore made could not bo such as “due diligence” under the “Harter Act” requires. 27 Stat. 4-id.

I also find the owners chargeable in this respect with any negligence of their agents appointed to inspect.

Decree for libelants, with costs.  