THE PHAHOS. 915 �snch close proximity to it tlirough unprotected openings as would per- mit its steaming to produce similar damage, and the one was as much negligence as the other. The considerable number of baies rotted in strips, compared with the small number affected by sea water, shows tbat the wetting of the wood, whether of dunnage or of redwobd, could not have arisen from the drip of sweating, nor from sea water taken in through perils of the sea. There was at no time any flood- 'ing of the between-decks, and there could be no dripping of the sea water which would not have affected the upper surface of all the baies of the upper tier much more than it could have affected any dunnage strips which might be in contact with the baies of wool. I must find, therefore, that the caking and rotting of the wool were owing to its con- tact with, or very near proximity to, wet and steaming redwood. Had the wet wood been entirely covered by dunnage it would seem that the wool would have been uninjured ; but if, as it is alleged, spaces were needed to be left open for ventilation, this could not be done at the expense of the wool ; and either the redwood should have been rejected, or, if taken on board, put where it would not injure other portions of the cargo. The contact or close proximity of the wool and the wet wood could have been easily avoided, and failure to protect the wool properly is such a want of skill and attention as con- Btitutes negligence in stowage which renders the carrier liable. Mainwaring v. The Carrie Delap, 1 Fed. Eep. 874. �The evidence afforded by the impressions of wood upon the baies, and of the baies upon the redwood, cannot be overcome by mere gen- erai testimony that the dunnage was well laid. Along the wings the dimnage was proved to have been insecurely fastened, and the general testimony of the master and other witnesses, that the dunnage over the redwood in the lower between-decks was well laid, is much quali- fied by the fact that they saw but a small portion of it laid. �Even if the burden of proof was upon the libellants to show the particular cause of the injury, I think it is sufficiently shown. The presence of a sufficient cause is shown in the wet redwood, whether m contact with or in close proximity to the wool, either of which would render the carrier liable ; while no other consistent or adequate cause of the damage to the 76 baies appears. �There must, therefore, be judgment for the libellants, with costs, and a reference to ascertain the damage to the 76 baies above re- feiTed to. ��� �
