6e FEDERAL REPORTER, �of the libellants if the ceiling had been water-tigbt, or if proper means had been devised and applied to prevent the bilge-water, when the vessel rolled, from blowing or escaping through the seams of the ceiling, and finding access to the sheet iron as stowed in the hold. Suitable applianees, it is not doubted, would have prevcnted such consequences, and protected the cargo from damage. Nothing of the kind was done or attempted, and, in view of the exposed condition of the cargo from the causes shown, the conclusion miist be that the place where the same was stowed was an unfit place, in that steamer, for stowing such cargo on such a voyage at that season of the year. �Defences of varions kinds are set up in argument, of which the two principal ones deserve to be specially examined: �First. That the bill of lading excepts leakage, breakage and rust; the language of the instrument being "not answer- able for leakage, breakage or rust." �Second. That the damage was caused by the perils of the seas, within the meaning of the bill of lading. �1. Two or more answers may be made to the defence, aris- ing from the said exception: �First. It is not adequate to have occasioned the loss. Kust may be cause by sweat or mere moisture of the air in the place where goods are stowed, and it may be that the excep- tion is adequate to cover such a loss, and in such a case to shift the bu xlen of proof from the carrier to the shipper, to show tlat the loss was not occasioned by that peril. �Seci) d, Goncade that, but it by no means follows that such an exception is adequate to cover the damage in this case, which arose from the profusely wetting and soaking the sheet iron in sait bilge-water, blown through the seams and crevices of the ceiling on the sides of the place where the iron was stowed. Viewed in the light of the actual circumstances, it is clear that the exception is neither adequate nor suffi- ciently comprehensive to cover the damages occasioned by the means proved in this case. �Third. Suppose, however, it may have the effect to shift the burden of proof, still it does not follow that the defence ��� �
