414 FEDERAL REPORTER. �^rfld from ihe tackles, should not be taken away the same iay, they might, at the option of the agents of the vessel, be "sent to store" or "permitted to lay where landed," at the expense and risk of the consignee. As to that, Judge Blateh- ford says, (2 Ben. 525 :) "This provision is not ambiguous, and plainly shows that the parties intended that a landing of the cotton on the wharf, at the place of destination, should be regarded as a delivery of it from the tackles of the vessel." This remark applies with fuU force to the present case. �It is, however, insisted that there is no proof that the case in question was landed on the wharf before it was takon away.- There is evidence showing that the oartmen employed by L. & H. Blum, and cartmen employed by the libellants, went to the wharf and took and carried away cases and pack- ages of goods, and that Blum received one package more than his bills of lading called for, and the libellants one less than theirs called for. There is also evidence tending to show that this particular package was misdirected, having upon it the name of "L. & H. Blum," instead of "P. J. Willis & Ce," as stated in the bill of lading. It is shown that some time after the discharge of the cargo the goods contained in thia case were found in Blum's store, where, after they were so dis- covered, they were destroyed by fire. It also was shown that the delivery clerk of the steamer at Galveston was present during the discharge of the cargo, and the carting away of the goods, and that he took note of the number of packages taken away by the cartmen of each consignee, as they wera "taken away. This witness testifies that "the freight was dis- charged from the vessel by stevedores; that the draymen selected the freight as it lay on the wharf." �This, it seems to me, is sufficient proof that the case ia. question had been already delivered upon the wharf beforp it was taken, as, upon the proofs, it appears that it was taken by Blum's drayman, The subsequent acts of the de- livery clerk, which in his testimony he described as a deliv- ery of the goods to the drayman — that is, the checking off of the number of the cart, name of drayman, etc. — are in no way ^iiïerent in character or effect from what was done by the ����
