1. Shipping (§ 102*) — Seaworthiness ov Vessel — Method os Construction.

While, in determining whether or not the construction of a vessel rendered her nnseawort hy, it is proper to consider evidence of the usual custom of shipowners and the usual method of construction of ships and tlieir appliances, such evidence is not necessarily conclusive, and should be considered in the light of what would appear to be the pm-dent method of construction, and may be rejected entirely where the construction is obviously defective.

[Ed. Note. — Eor other .cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. § 484; Dec. Dig. § 132.*]

2. Appeal and Error (§ 1010*) — Review—Findings—Seaworthiness op Vessel.

A finding that the placing of the filling pipe extending from the engine room to the trimming tank in the forepeak of a steamship upon the floor of the intermediate hold, boxed in, without a valve within or immediately without the tank to shut off the water in the tank from the pipe in case of a break in the pipe to prevent, the flooding of the hold, rendered the vessel unseaworthy as to cargo in such hold, will not be reversed by an appellate court where there was expert testimony that such construction was faulty.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 8979-3982; Dec. Dig. § 1030.*]

3. Shipping (§ 132*) — Liability op Vessel eor Injury to Cargo — Seaworthiness.

The fact of the breakiug of one of the sections of cast-iron pipe extending from the engine room o£ a steamship to a tank in the forepealc along the floor of the hold, allowing water to escape into the hold and injure the cargo therein, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, authorizes an inference that the ship was unsea worthy as to the cargo placed in the hold at the beginning of the voyage, by reason either .of defects in the pipe or the boxing, and the burden rests upon the vessel to overcome such inference.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipxiing, Cent. Dig. § 484; Dec. Dig. § 132.*]

4. Shipping (§ 121*) — Carriage op Goods — Implied Warranty op Seaworth- , INESS.

In every contract for the carriage of goods by sea, in the absence of agreement otherwise, there is an absolute implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the time of the beginning of her voyage, and reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary perils to be expected, and her liability for loss or injury to cargo from a latent defect in vessel or appliances is not affected by the Harter act (Act Feb. 13, 1893, c. 100, 27 Stat. 445 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901 p. 2948]).

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Shipping, Dec. Dig. § 321.*

Implied warranty of seaworthiness, see notes to The Garib Prince, 16 C. O. A. 8SS; Neilson v. Coal, Cement & Supply Co., 60 C. C. A. 177.)