661 ���FEDEBAIi BEPOBTKB. ���that on one of the days on which the respondents refused to receive brimstone on account of the wind the witness con- tinued discharging ail day. He says, however, that he did not himself pretend to judge of the force of the wind, and ail he can say is that his consignee allowed him to continue discharging. �It appears, moreover, that his vessel lay in a position more sheltered from the wind, being on the north side of the har- bor, and the wind being .from the north on that day. From his testimony it appears, also, thathe was 15 days discharging 560 tons of brimstone, which is a less average than was ac- complished by libellant's vessel, which was 20 days, in ail, discharging over 900 tons. The United States signal service report was put in evidence by the libellants to show that it was as windy on the days when the greatest number of tons were discharged as on those when the discharging was stopped, but as those reports give only the highest velocity during the 24 hours, they do not show the velocity during the working hours of the day. The report does show that it was what is considered windy weather, and that on the days when the discharging was proceeded with the wind was from the south, and on the days when the discharging was suspended the wind was from the north, At Locust Point the vessel would be sheltered from a south wind and exposed to the north winds. �Upon consideration of the testimony, and of ail the circum- Btances attending the discharging of the cargo, I do not find that the vessel did not have customary dispatch, andthelibel must be dismissed. �Note. — See The M. 8. Bacon v. The Brie <e Western Transportation Co. ante, 34e. ����
