66 FEDERAL REPORTER. �First. Because the evidence proves to a demonstration that the goods were shipped in good order and condition, and that the respondents have failed to show that the injuries to the goods resulted from the excepted perils, or any of them, or from the fault of the shipper. - �Second. Because the steamer was unseaworthy in that she ■was not of a construction suitable to carry such a cargo on such a voyage at that season of the year. �Third. Because the ceiling of the steamer was not of a suit- able charactor, nor fit to protcct such cargo from sait water on the desoribed voyage. �Foiirth, ïhat the goods injured were not properly stowed or dunnaged for their protection against injuries of the kind on such a voyage. �Two points are not controverted in argument by the re- spondents : �First. That the goods were in good order and condition when shipped. �Second. That the quantity mentioned in the libel was in- jured in the course of the voynge, and that it was not in good order and condition when delivered. �Conceded or not, the evidence to that efïect is satisfactory and conclusive, but the respondents explicitly deny every other proposition submitted by the libellants, and insist as follows : �First. That the burden of proof is upon the libellants to prove that the injury to the goods did not resuit from the excepted perils. �Second. That the steamer was in ail respects seaworthy, and of suitable construction and equipment to transport such a cargo on such a voyage at that season of the year. �Third. That the ceiling of the ship was sufficient, and that the goods were properly stowed and dunnaged. �Hearing was had in the district court, and the district court entered a decree dismissing the libel, from which decree the libellants appealed to this court. Since the appeal was entered here more than aixty witnesses have been examined by the parties, whieb renders it necessary to review ail the ��� �
