1. We think there is no ground for this appeal. In order to make the defendants liable for the loss of the goods in question, it should have been shown that the defendants had no right to land them upon the godowns.
2. Perhaps Mr. Bell may be justified in saying that, by the terms of the bill-of-lading the defendants were bound to give the plaintiffs the option of landing the goods 'from the ship's tackle,' and that they had no right to land them at the godowns without giving the plaintiffs that option.
3. But then we think it clear from the evidence that the plaintiffs consented to the goods being landed at the godowns.
4. It appears that when once the ship had been placed alongside the wharf, the goods could not have been landed from the 'ship's tackle,' according to the proper meaning of that expression, and that the only way to land them then was at the godowns; and the plaintiffs evidently consented to this course, because they paid without objection a sum for wharfage, &c.;, which we cannot doubt was a charge made by the defendants for the use of the godowns.
5. The plaintiffs are, therefore, placed in this position. Either the placing these goods in the godowns was a part of the defendants' duty under the contract of carriage, in which case we think they would be protected under the clause in the bill-of-lading, providing against loss by fire, as much as if the fire had occurred on board-ship; or when the goods were placed in the godowns with the consent of the plaintiffs, the defendants had the charge of them as wharfingers, which is the view which we are disposed to take of their true position; and in this case, it being conceded that the goods were destroyed by fire without any fault on the part of the defendants, the latter are not responsible.
6. We think, therefore, that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.