Sir Walter Phillimore :-

These are consolidated appeals in two actions brought in the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta. The appellants are the plaintiffs.

They brought their action in respect of two parcels of Jute laden on board the flat ''Jattrapore" for carriage from Bera to Ruthtolla Ghat at Calcutta on the terms of certain bills of lading, and they sued in respect of a loss of the jute by fire. The general outline of the facts in the case is as follows :-

The flat proceeded to her destination at Ruthtolla Ghat; but when she reached her discharging berth the consignees were not ready to take delivery.

There was a dispute upon this subject in the Courts below, the plaintiffs complaining that they had been prevented from taking delivery. But this issue was found against them, and the decision on this point has not been questioned before this Board.

The flat with other cargo on board was then taken further down the Hooghly, and ultimately moored head and stem to two buoys, near a wharf called Nintollah Ghat. She was moored with head up river outside another flat called the "Coleroon" which was fastened to the same buoys. There were other flats further in shore. She had been in this position two or three days when afire broke out on board the "Coleroon" in the early morning of the 16th December, 1912. The fire spread to the "Jattarpore," and, though the latter was ultimately got clear and towed away down river, so much mischief had been done that the greater part of the jute in question was destroyed.

In these circumstances the several plaintiffs sued the defendant Company for that the Company had not delivered the goods in accordance with the bill of lading, and alternatively for not taking care of the goods and saving them from the fire.

The contract of carriage had been terminated by the arrival of the flat at the wharf at which delivery should have been taken, and by the neglect of the plaintiffs to take delivery in due course the liability of the defendant Company under the bills of lading had ceased, and its responsibility thereafter was that of an ordinary bailee. The limits of this responsibility are defined in the following sections of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 :-

"151. In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him, as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality, and value as the goods bailed.

"152. The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, obstruction, or deterioration of the thing bailed if he has taken the amount of care of it described in S. 151."

The "Jattarpore" at the time of the fire was moored alongside the "Coleroon", as already stated. The nature of her moorings was as follows : She had a wire hawser out from one bow with an eye made at the end which was thrown over a bitt. The hawser was taken to the buoy, passed through a ring there, and led back to the other bow. There it was made fast by coiling it in a figure of eight over two bitts. There was a simitar attachment with another wire hawser to the stern; and there were breast fastenings to the ''Coleroon". Whether these latter were composed of wire or of ordinary rope is not quite certain. The balance of the evidence seems to be that they were of rope, and this would be the more probable state of things.

At the time of the fire the tide was flood, and the flat would therefore be straining at her stern moorings. The "Coleroon" had similar head and stem moorings. The fire broke out in the early morning on the 16th December, as already stated. It was discovered by the watchman on board the "Jattrapore" at 3-30 A.M., and no point was made that he did not discover it as soon as he should have done. He called up the serang, or native commander; and the rest of the crew awoke. The head moorings were at once cast off. It is said that certain steps were taken towards casting off the stern moorings but that th