This was an action  commenced in the Court of  First Instance  of the city of Manila, by the plaintiffs against the defendants, to recover damages caused  to the lorcha Marte by the  defendants  on  or about the 15th  of April, 1908.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court  rendered the following decision:

"The following facts were proved at trial:

"1.  Messrs. Macondray & Co., one of the business  firms of this city, as agents at this port of the steamer Muncaster Castle, having to unload from the said vessel, which had come from New York and was  anchored in Cavite Bay, a case  of machinery  weighing 25  tons, consigned  to  The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, accepted the offer of the lorcha Marte,  made to them by the plaintiffs, Rocha & Co., a mercantile  copartnership company, also of this city,  and owned by the latter, in  order  that the said case of machinery might be unloaded onto the lorcha and transported from Cavite Bay to this port.

"2. Between 4 and 5 o'clock of the afternoon  of the 14th of April,  1908 - that is, three days  after Messrs.  Macondray & Co. received  the offer made by Rocha & Co. of the lorcha Marte - and while  proceeding  with the operation of transferring the said case of machinery from the  hold of the vessel before mentioned  to the deck of the lorcha Marte, using for this purpose the said vessel's  main mast and spar,  the latter attached to  the former like a derrick, and while the said case was suspended above the starboard side of the lorcha at a height of from  18 inches to 2  feet, the pulleys or links  of the chain or cable which  fastened the said mast broke, causing the latter, with  the  spar, to lean toward the side where the case was  and to break, letting the case fall onto that part of the said craft - that is, the starboard side - the. fall at the  same time  causing the lorcha  to incline to that side, with  danger of the case going into  the water.

"3, To avoid this, and also to save the lorcha from the danger it was in, as it had begun to leak in consequence of the blow  it received from the "fall  of the  case,  and  on account of its  being  somewhat under  water on the said starboard  side, they  proceeded, under  the  orders of the captain of the steamer, to fasten both the  case and the lorcha to the side of the vessel by means of ropes and wire cables, the  case remaining there in that condition until the following day, when it was extracted, by means of a large floating crane, by The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, the consignee of the said  case, and transported to this port of Manila in another vessel.

"4. Macondray & Co. not having adopted any determination whatever with respect to the lorcha, notwithstanding that they were notified of the accident by Rocha & Co.,  it remained fastened, by means of ropes and cables as before stated, to the side of  the Muncaster Castle, though sunken to the level of the sea on account of leakage and the  damage consequent upon the loss of the hatches, until the morning of the 19th of April - that is, for five days after the accident occurred - when the said Rocha & Co.  proceeded to salve the said lorcha and to remove it to a shipyard of this city where  repairs were made thereto, the cost of which, added to the  expenses of salvage and the losses in  the  collection of freight  charges from  the  14th to the 30th.  of April, amounted to the total  sum of P2,493, according to the document, Exhibit A, which accompanied the complaint.

"Rocha & Co. alleged in the fifth paragraph of their said complaint that the cause of the breaking of the cables and the main  mast, which  constituted the  apparatus  for the raising and discharge  of the case, was the latter's enormous weight of 27 tons, a  weight heavier than  the main mast and the cables could support and resist on account of their condition, the insufficiency of the said vessel's  unloading apparatus, and the failure on the. part of the  captain and the employees and crew under his orders to  adopt any measures or means which ordinary prudence counseled to previously make sure of the sufficiency, resistance, and good condition of the apparatus employed to perform the operation effected without the probability of the  occurrence  of the accident which  happened.   The  plaintiffs,  therefore,  prayed  that judgment be rendered against the defendants for the  said sum of P2,493, as an indemnity for losses and  damages, with interest and costs.

"From  the evidence adduced, however, it was proved that the operation of unloading the  said case, or of its  transportation  from  the steamer Muncaster Castle to the deck of the lorcha Marte, was performed under the supervision of the  captain  of the  steamer, Percy  Watson, and of a stevedore, a representative  of William  Sherman,  after  the said stevedore had tested the apparatus by means of which the said case  was  removed  from the hold of the  aforesaid vessel  without any difficulty or mishap whatever.  There is absolutely  no proof that the said  operation  was conducted  in an inappropriate manner or that  means were employed  which could have resulted in the accident.

"On the  contrary,  it  was  shown by the testimony of Captain Watson himself, not rebutted at the trial by the plaintiff's  counsel,  that,  although both  in loading and unloading cargo of  that  weight they had sometimes used, especially  in  the  port  of  New York,  floating cranes or derricks, because of their having a contract for this purpose, the employment of other means  being considered harmful, nevertheless they had  often used for such  operations the spar or yard and the mast, even for larger weights; that in Japan they unloaded by this means two locomotives,  whose boilers weighed 28 tons, and also in Manila Bay, three days before the accident, cast-iron cannons and boilers weighing 28 and  22 tons,  respectively, with the  sole difference that this freight was unloaded from the port side of the vessel, while the case in question was taken off from the starboard side.

"The  record  likewise shows,  by the testimony  given by Captain Watson, with no evidence  whatever to  the contrary, that he  made sure,  before attempting to unload, that the mast and the cables were able to resist the weight of the 27-ton case.   This same witness moreover testified that the pulleys and  cogwheels, and  the wires of the said apparatus, had  been thoroughly tested  and could bear a weight of 50 tons; that he had a certificate from the Government which stated that the  said  apparatus could support such a weight,  although, he added,  he  could  not be held responsible for any  defects which  afterwards  might  be found and were not visible in the apparatus mentioned or which existed inside of the mast at the time of its construction.  This mast was made entirely of steel.

"It is true that the stevedore, William Sherman, a witness for the defendants, who arrived at the steamer Muncaster Castle  one hour and  fifteen minutes after the accident,  for he had his representative, Mr. Farris,  there when the said operation of unloading was performed, testified at the trial that he thought that they  intended  to put into the said apparatus  a load of greater weight than the mast could  resist, giving it to be understood by this, perhaps, that  it was  due to this  excess in weight of  the load that  the mast  broke.  It is also  true that Tomas Felipe, a witness for the plaintiffs and  customs inspector who was on the vessel Muncaster Castle at the time and was present at the accident,  in referring to the unloading of four cannons  in Manila Bay by means of the same mast and  spar  that  is, the identical cannons referred to by Captain Watson of the said  steamer - testified  that on the occasion  mentioned the load lowered 2 inches because of the lowering of the ring which held the derrick.

"But it is to be borne in mind that the testimony of this second witness,  Tomas Felipe,  has  but  little or  no importance in the  present case to enable a conclusion to be drawn therefrom  that  the mast, the spar, or any  of the component parts of the said unloading apparatus was  in bad condition, inasmuch  as such testimony is  incredible, for in the matter of a load such as is inferred from a bulk like that of a  cannon of 22 tons in weight it is not  understood how nor why the said witness could have  observed that the load  had lowered so  small a  space as that of 2 inches, a space imperceptible and inestimable, particularly if we consider the movements  made in operations of that kind; but be that  as it may, such a statement made by a person who is not, like this witness, an expert, and without being in any  manner corroborated at the trial,  can not serve as a foundation whereupon to conclude with certainty that such a defect  did exist  in the apparatus,  and consequently,  that  there was negligence  or  carelessness  on the  part of the captain  of the Muncaster Castle by his again employing the said apparatus for the unloading of the case in question, several days afterwards, without taking such defect into account, or without having corrected it.

"With respect to the  opinion expressed by the stevedore Sherman, a person of expert knowledge in this matter,  it is to be taken into account that the original and  primary cause of the accident was the breaking of two pulleys which held the mast fast, to which  was attached the  spar,  as Captain  Watson testified, and  this  was also given to  be understood by the very witness of the plaintiffs, Tomas Felipe, in testifying that  on that occasion, while  the case was hoisted to the side of the ship, one of the rings burst and  the mast  buckled or bent downwards.  The stevedore Farris testified that  'before the case could be put  into a good position  to let it fall or  to place it upon the lorcha, two  links of the chain  and an eyebolt  broke, leaving the mast without  any  support,  for they followed  the ropes,' the result being, according to this same  witness, that, with the rising and falling of the lorcha and the case, due to the movement of the sea, the mast followed the same motion and  fell.   This witness Farris  added that, in his  opinion, there must have been some invisible defect in the manufacture of the bolts, the nut, and the links of the chain.

"The original and primary cause of the accident, then, did not consist in the breaking of the mast, but in the breaking of two pulleys or two links and an eyebolt of the chain sustaining the mast, which  caused the spar  and the mast to  be drawn downwards by the weight of the case, and the mast, left without support on account of the breakage of the said pulteys or links, also broke.   It is therefore evident that no consideration can be given to the opinion expressed by the stevedore, Mr. Sherman, with respect to the small resisting power of the mast to carry a weight heavier than it could support, an opinion given in order to lead to the conclusion that tfce accident was due to the breaking of the  mast in question,  because of its  being unable to resist so heavy a weight as that of the 25-ton case; and it is perfectly well understood  that  such  a deduction  can  not  be  reached, because,  in the case under consideration, if the two pulleys of the mast, as Captain Watson testified, or the two links and an eyebolt of the chain,  according to Stevedore Farris's testimony, had not broken, it is obvious that the mast would not have broken, because the said chain or eyebolt was what sustained the mast which, left without  support, due to the weight of the case, necessarily had to break, as it could not maintain  itself in a  position perpendicular to the ship's deck.

"Briefly, the logical and reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts hereinbefore related, in connection with the fact of the said mast and spar having been  used by  Captain Watson  on other occasions  and three days before  for the unloading of effects  of equal weight,  and  sometimes of greater  weight than that of the case  of machinery mentioned, without any difficulty or mishap whatever, is  that the mast and the spar and all of that apparatus for unloading, used in the removal of the said case from the steamer to the lorcha, had no defect whatever) was suitable for the purpose, and that there was no imprudence, carelessness, negligence, nor omission whatever on the part of  Captain Watson in his having  used  on the said occasion  the  apparatus referred to, and that the damage resulting from the accident  was caused by a merely fortuitous event,  for which neither the captain of the vessel nor the other defendants can be held responsible.

"Moreover, from the evidence adduced, it was also shown that, although the lorcha Marte had a tonnage of 67 tons, net weight, and could  carry  from 70 to  75 tons, haying received, one or two days before the accident, a load of 67 tons of  oil in barrels or jars,  notwithstanding  it was not designed to carry on deck in a fixed  place - that is, in a single mass - a case like the  one  in  question,  of 25 tons weight whose dimensions were, approximately, 24 feet in length, 12 or  14 feet in width, and  8 feet in height, because the  said lorcha had a round  bottom and was of the type of boat used for  receiving cargo in its  hold, and not on  its deck, which was not flat, but had hatches, which made it impossible or difficult to place the  case on the deck; moreover, as the craft was not then carrying ballast, even though the case  had been placed in the center of the deck, the lorcha would not  have  had the  necessary stability to  maintain itself in a  horizontal position, it  being due to this, and especially to the fact of  its having a round bottom, that it inclined to one side in the manner aforestated when the case gravitated toward  the prow on its starboard side until it became necessary for the lorcha to be made fast to the Muncaster Castle, as before related.

"Now, then, the said lorcha was offered by the plaintiffs to Macondray  &  Co., they,  the plaintiffs,  knowing, as indeed they must have known, the condition of the same, and knowing that it was intended to load therein the said 25-ton case, as shown by  the letter,  Exhibit 4, addressed on the 11th of April to the said Macondray & Co. by the plaintiffs; so that the failure of that operation is partly due and must be attributed  to the latter themselves,  for the fact  of the lorcha not being in suitable condition when it was placed  at the disposal of the captain of the steamer alongside his vessel for the purpose of receiving the load contributed to the  accident,  since, as is  easily understood from the explanations made by some of the defendants' witnesses, if the said craft had been sufficiently ballasted it, with the weight upon it, would not have listed so much toward the side where the case lay, and if it had had a flat deck and no hatches, it would  have been easier to place  the case on  the  deck than to have placed it in the hold.

"Although the case had  so great a weight as that of 25 tons and  although  it be admitted that, on  the bending or leaning of the mast and the spar by the  breaking of the pulleys, the case fell onto the deck with the full impulse of its weight a distance of from 18 inches to 2  feet, the blow could not have been of such a nature as to have caused so much  damage to the craft as was noted when  it was placed in  the shipyard for repairs.

"It is understood, of course, that as an immediate result of such a blow the lorcha may have started to leak, and that, inclined on its starboard side, on account of the gravitation of the case  in that direction, water must have entered its hold, but, as is deduced from the testimony of the captain of the steamer and from that of other witnesses of the defendants, the water could have been baled out so as to prevent the  craft  from submerging,  and,  with less  indolence and inactivity on the part of the crew, the loss of the hatches and other parts of the upper works would have been avoided.

"At all events,  it was  proved that the  captain  of  the steamer adopted the necessary measures to secure the lorcha to the side of the vessel in such manner as to prevent its total loss  and to enable the case to be removed from it, by means of a floating derrick, and brought  ashore by the Manila Electric Railroad  and Light  Company, the  lorcha from that moment, being freed from the weight which was bearing down upon it, it was possible to remove  the boat from its place alongside the ship and take it to the shipyard for repairs.

"This, however, was not done until four days afterwards, that  is, on the 19th, the lorcha having been  during all  that time attached to  the  steamer by cables and  almost  submerged, which,  together  with the  blows it must have received from the vessel itself, on account of the movement of the waves, necessarily produced, in its upper works and also within, much damage that would not have been caused if the lorcha had been removed from that place and taken to the shipyard the day following the accident.

"As neither the captain of the steamer nor Macondray & Co. were responsible for the said removal and conveyance, as aforesaid, it devolved upon the plaintiffs to perform those operations which in fact they did five days afterwards, and therefore the latter themselves must suffer the consequences of their lack of diligence, and because the lorcha was not released from the said situation as soon as the case  was extracted, which prevented the release of the craft, the latter received greater damage than was the immediate and direct result of the fall of the heavy case upon it.

"Lastly, it was not proved that the captain of the Muncaster Castle failed to render the required aid in order to keep the lorcha  in such  condition that the plaintiffs could remove it from its position at the side of the steamer and convey it to the shipyard, and it is unlikely, and can not be deemed as proved, that he prevented the lorcha's crew from picking up  the  hatches and  other  appurtenances of the injured craft which were floating about on the sea, or from executing any other act for the salvage of the said lorcha, and  it is much less probable that the first officer of the said steamer compelled the said crew to throw the hatches overboard, as stated by the master of the lorcha, Zacarias Labrador, in his testimony given at the trial, the  testimony of Hilario Tan Toco, the man in charge or representative on the lorcha of Rocha & Co., being more likely and credible, to the effect that he ordered the crew to gather up the hatches and that then one of the officers of the Muncaster Castle also ordered his crew to gather them up, a part of them being placed on the lorcha and  a part on the steamer; and it was also  shown, by the testimony of Tomas Felipe, the customs inspector who was present at the time on the Muncaster Castle, that the crew of the lorcha did nothing toward gathering up the hatches; from all of which it must be concluded that it was necessary for Hilario Tan Toco,  Rocha & Co/s man in charge, to order the lorcha's crew to gather up the hatches in order to have them do so, and this is sufficient to conclude that the said  crew did nothing by themselves, and were not disposed to do  anything  on their  own initiative for the salvage of the craft and to avoid greater  damage being done thereto during the period of time that elapsed from the moment the accident occurred on  the  afternoon of the 14th until the morning of the 19th, when the plaintiffs proceeded to salve the said craft and convey it to a shipyard in this city; and it is unquestionable that, during those five days, the  said plaintiffs  could have done a good  deal  to prevent an increase  of the losses and damages suffered by the lorcha, without the necessity of  orders being given  for that purpose by the captain  and officers of the Muncaster Castle, and they also could have gathered up the said hatches, if it were true that they had been  put on a lighter or in the bow of the steamer by order of the first officer, as  the master of the  lorcha testified.

"In conclusion, the testimony of  the  said master and of Arturo  Blanco,  the inspector of vessels, introduced in  rebuttal by the plaintiffs to prove  that the stevedore, Farris, was not on board the Muncaster Castle when the accident occurred,  but arrived some moments  afterwards,  is not worthy of belief, because, besides  the fact of these two witnesses being employees of the plaintiffs themselves, their testimony is contradictory to that given by the captain  of the steamer, H. P. Winkler,  a witness for the defendants, who mentioned Mr. Farris as one of those who was present at the time on the said steamer, and the testimony of Farris himself, considered in connection with the statements made by the other witnesses who were present during the accident, prove that he also was present.  It is, moreover, strange, and can not but attract our attention, that Arturo  Blanco, being aboard the Muncaster Castle that afternoon, according to his own testimony, when Farris,  as he testified,  arrived in a launch from Canacao, and Zacarias Labrador being at that same time, according to his own testimony, not on the steamer,  but on the sea, these two,  Farris and  Labrador, should have testified that Farris arrived ten minutes after the accident - a uniformity  of statements which makes the testimony of both of these witnesses suspicious, and so much the more that, in  order to  prove that point,  the plaintiffs could have availed themselves of the testimony  of  Tomas Felipe himself, one of their witnesses, and that of the other persons who were aboard the steamer on that occasion.

"By virtue of the foregoing reasons,  the court sabsolves the defendants, with the costs against  the plaintiffs.  So ordered.  Manila,  August 30,  1909. -  (Sgd.) Manuel Araullo, judge."

From  this judgment the plaintiff appealed  and  made three assignments  of  error in this court.  These assignments of error  present questions of fact  only.

From  an examination of the evidence brought to this court, we are of the  opinion  and so hold that there is a clear preponderance of evidence in  favor  of the  finding of the lower court.  Its sentence and judgment are, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs.

After  the bill of exceptions and the briefs of the  respective  parties had been filed  in  this  court and after a request had been made to place the same upon the calendar of the July term, Mr.  Carlos Young,  on the  17th of May, 1910, presented a motion praying for the dismissal  of the appeal, claiming to have purchased all  of the interest of the plaintiff and appellant involved in this cause.  Before this motion was acted upon, Mr. Carlos Young presented another motion on  the  8th  of July,  1910, asking that he be substituted for  the  plaintiff and appellant.  These motions were opposed by the attorneys for the original plaintiff and appellant.

On the 12th  of July, 1910, the  court acted upon said motions and granted the one  asking for the substitution of Carlos Young for the plaintiff and  appellant, but denied the one asking for the dismissal of the appeal.

On the 16th of July, 1910, Mr. Carlos  Young, through his attorney, presented another motion asking permission to withdraw his motion of the 8th of July, which motion was duly granted.   It is so ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.