RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This was a libel for damage to a shipment of steel bars such as are commonly used for reinforcing purposes. The bars were 46 feet in length, tied into small bundles, and these in turn into larger bundles, weighing about a ton. The damage claimed by the shipper arose from the bending of the bars through the alleged negligence of the carrier. On final hearing the court below found that the carrier was free from negligence and entered a decree of dismissal, from which the present appeal is prosecuted.
The question presented by the record is largely one of fact. The appellant offered in evidence the bill of lading which contained the common recital that the steel was received in apparent good order and condition. A witness for the appellant testified that he was present and observed the discharge of the cargo at Los Angeles for the period of two or three hours; that 20 or 25 bundles taken from one of the hatches were bent into the shape of a hairpin because of the manner in which the cargo was taken from the hold of the ship and placed on board the cars, and that he protested to some person in apparent authority, but without result. The testimony of this witness was corroborated in a general way by another witness for the appellant. The appellant also offered in evidence a check kept by the check clerk of the railway company to which the steel was delivered upon its discharge from the vessel, and a like clerk of the appellee. This check showed that a considerable number of bundles and a considerable number of single bars in the bundles were bent, but to what extent the check did not disclose. The competency of this testimony was challenged by the appellee on the ground that the check was not verified by the persons who made it, but for present purposes we will assume that the check was competent. As against this, two officers of the ship testified that some of the steel was bent and some of the bundles were loose before the steel was taken from the dock at the point of shipment. Some of the officers of the ship and a surveyor further testified that they observed the manner in which the steel was discharged from the vessel at Los Angeles from time to time, and that none of it was bent as testified by the witnesses for the appellant. No person who actually participated in the discharge of the cargo or who was present at all times during the discharge was called as a witness by either side.
The principal contention of the appellant seems to be that the court below failed to give due consideration to the recital in the bill of lading that the steel was received in apparent good order and condition. The
At the instance and request of the appellee, the appellant was compelled to advance and pay the cost of reproducing for the printed record certain original exhibits certified to this court by the court below. The request for the reproduction was in our opinion an unreasonable one under the circumstances, and the appellant will therefore recover from the appellee the cost of such reproduction, less the costs taxable in favor of the appellee in this court.