have known from the occurrence of the night before at Santos, the Master was charged with knowledge of what he would have seen had a close inspection of the bow near the waterline been made.  Consequently, it is urged, there was an independent failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy prior to departure from Rio regardless of the origin of the initial hull damage.  The contention is indeed a relevant one, since it seems overwhelming from the bilge soundings that it was the working of the vessel in the seas after departure from Rio that caused the entry of substantial amounts of sea water into No. 2 hold.  In point of fact it was more important to close up the hole atthe vessel seaworthy.  If the damage sustained by the cargo as a result of wetting after leaving Rio may be treated as proximately resulting from a failure to inspect and repair at Rio, that error, too, was one in the management of the vessel unaffected by any act of the owner through its shore staff.  The decree for the cargo must be reversed and rendered for a dismissal of the libels.


27
Reversed and rendered.


28
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge (dissenting).


29
A careful consideration, in the light of the pleadings, the opening statements of counsel, and the evidence which was substantially not in dispute, of the majority's sweeping out of hand rejection of the district judge's clearly, precisely, and, I think, correctly stated findings and conclusions, has left me with the firm