302 FBDISItAI» SEfOUXER. �LiNDSAT, Gracie & Co. ». Cusimano.* �{Diiirict Court, E. D. Louhiana. January 14, 1882.) �1. CHABTEn-PARTT — "OUSTOMART DiSPATCH." �Ttic mcaning of the words " CHstomary dispafch" in a charter-party, relative to the disoliarge of a vessel, construed and explained. These words, " custom- ary dispatch," mean the usual dispatch of persona who are ready to receive a cargo, and exclude all customs in accordance with which the charterers claim they might, notwithstahding opportunity, decline ta receive, simply because it was more advantageous to postpone. �Kearon V. Pearson, 7 Hurl. & K. 388. �2. Customs op the Port— Obligations of Charte iedb Akd Consionees. �The customs of the port cannot qualify the obligation of the charterers and consignees to obtain a berth where the vessel could have "cuslomary dis- patch." �Smith V. Tellow Fine Lumber, 2 Fed. Rep. 400. S. Bill of Lading— Uin'loading Cakgo— Charges por Covering Cargo aftbb �: DlSCH.VliGB. �.Where the Mil pf lading provjdes that the cargQ should bedelivered from the ship's deck, -when the ship's responsibility sbould cease, the obligation to proteot the cargo, after it was placed upon the wharf, was upon the char- terers. �Turnbull v. Bloeks of Marble, 9 Fe». Rep. 320. �The steam-ship Glenbervie, having brought a cargo of fruit from Italy to New Orleans, under a charter-party providing that she should be discharged with customary dispatch, her owners instituted this suit against the consignee to recover demurrage for unusual and un- necessary detention in discharging, and for sundry items of charges made against her by the consignee in settling for the charter-money. �Joseph P. Hornor and Francis W. Baker, for libellants. �Charles B. Singleton and R. Horace Browne, for defendant. �BiLLiNGs, D. J. The principal discussion in this case has been as to the meaning of the phrase in the charter-party, "to discharge with customary dispatch," and, subordinately, whether the consignees are to pay demurrage for any portion of the 16 days elapsing between the time of the arrivai of the ship at the port of New Orleans and the time when the discharging of her cargo was completed. The testimony shows that it is the custom of the fruit dealers at that port to receive their fruit from the vessels no faster than they can sell it at the wharves. The fruit could have been received more rapidly and the discharging been sooner completed, but the con- signees declined to receive it in any greater quantities than could �♦Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar. ��� �
