Page images
PDF
EPUB

The

to as bearing, in some of its details, a close resemblance to the case at bar. In The Two Friends the salvors had been obliged to abandon their own vessel, which had struck upon a reef, and they were making for the island of Cuba in the long-boat or jolly-boat, "having secured a sufficiency of provisions, some sails, and a compass, and having further provided themselves with two coils of rope, for the purpose of saving their lives." When about 35 miles from Havana they fell in with the Two Friends, which had also struck upon a reef, and had been abandoned by her crew. She was at once boarded by the salvors, who, after weighing her anchors and throwing overboard a part of her cargo, "succeeded in getting the vessel to sea, pursuing a course towards England, because they had no information as to the destination of the vessel, and from the description on her stern they were led to suppose that she belonged to the island of Jersey." vessel reached Dartmouth after a voyage of from 25 to 30 days. The value of the property was £1,237. The court allowed £300. In the protest it is stated that they acted "for the benefit of the ship and cargo, and of all persons interested in the same, and for the preservation of their own lives." The case does not disclose what were the circumstances which constituted the danger to the lives of a boat's crew provided with sails, provisions, and a compass in a tropical sea, and 35 miles distant from Havana. But admitting that the desire to secure their own safety in some degree influenced their conduct, it is, I think, evident that the service was substantially a salvage service, wholly unlike the involuntary and compulsory service performed by the libelants in getting the Mabel out of the ice and taking her to Behring's straits.

The appraised value of the property saved is $5,392.25. But from this must be deducted the sum due the Rainbow for the clothes furnished the salvors. Mr. Walston, fourth mate of the Rainbow, must, I think, be considered a co-salvor. The large number of the salvors (19, not including the mate) will reduce the amount of their distributive shares. But I do not feel at liberty, on that account, to enhance the estimate of the value of the service. Eight or nine men would have been abundantly sufficient for the navigation of the vessel. The large number on board must have sensibly diminished the arduousness of their labors. At the time the master of the Rainbow permitted Mr. Walston to go on board the Mabel, the cruise of the former vessel had not been finished. She proposed to continue it for a week or 10 days longer. By parting with her fourth mate she not only lost his services, but by his absence one of her four boats became unavailable. In point of fact she took no more whales, but, had any been sighted, the absence of Mr. Walston might have occasioned a serious loss. I think the Rainbow is entitled to some compensation.

I think myself justified in slightly exceeding the percentage on the value of the property saved, allowed by Dr. Lushington in The Two v.22F,no.9-35

1

Friends, in view of the high rate of wages which obtains on this coast as compared with that prevailing in England 40 years ago. Had the imminent peril to which the salvors were exposed been voluntarily encountered in a gallant attempt to save the lives or property of others, I should have been greatly influenced by it. I shall allow to each of the seamen the sum of $60; to Mr. Reed and Mr. Walston $150 each; and to the Rainbow $100, together with the amount of her bill for supplies. The costs to be paid by the claimants.

THE REBA, etc.

(District Court, S. D. New York. November 10, 1884.)

1. COLLISION IN SLIP-HALF DAMAGES.

The tug R., in towing the schooner M. into a slip filled with ice, passed a canal-boat moored in the slip and caused a break in the planking of the canalboat, either through direct contact with the schooner or through the crush of ice between them. Held, immaterial from which cause the break arose, the blow being more violent than could be justified as an ordinary contact in putting boats in place, and that the tug was responsible for the damage; but it appearing further that the boat was old and not sound, and no notice of her weakness being given on the approach of the tug and schooner, held, that this was negligence in the libelant, and that he should, therefore, recover but half his damages.

2. SAME-FURTHER DAMAGE.

The canal-boat having been towed to Hoboken for repairs, and there moored upon sloping flats, and having broken from her moorings through insufficient lines and slid down with the ebb-tide, and thereby run against some floating spiles, causing her further damage, held, that the latter damage, arising proximately from an independent act of negligence, was not chargeable against the tug as damages arising out of the previous collision in the slip.

In Admiralty.

J. A. Hyland, for libelants.

Anson B. Stewart, for claimants.

BROWN, J. On the morning of the eighth of March, 1881, the canal. boat J. C. Heath, owned by the libelants, was discharging coal along the southerly side of the pier at the foot of Fifty-first street. The slip was filled with drift-ice, which was somewhat frozen together the night previous. The schooner Manhattan, desiring to obtain a berth inside of the canal-boat, employed the steam-tug Reba to take her in. The tug first broke up the ice in the slip to some extent, then took the schooner upon her port side and towed her slowly into place ahead of the canal-boat, proceeding in a somewhat diagonal direction towards the upper side of the slip, and giving an inward swing to the stern of the schooner when she had nearly passed the canal-boat. The mate of the schooner held a fender in his hand, and as the schooner passed along he walked aft, prepared to make use of the fender if necessary. The captain was near the stern of the schooner, and both he and the

mate testify that the schooner at no time came nearer than a foot from the bow of the canal-boat, and that the fender was not in fact used. Several witnesses, however, from the canal-boat, and two laborers who were shoveling coal near the bow of the boat, all testify that there was a considerable blow given to the canal-boat, and a sudden crash, followed by an immediate heavy leak of the boat, which had not leaked before. One plank was bent and mashed in near the bow. Shortly afterwards, to prevent sinking, the canal-boat was towed to the flats at Hoboken, and moored along-side the dock, where she was fastened by lines. As the tide ebbed, the lines gave way and she slid out into the stream. In doing so, one or two additional holes were made in her side, apparently from coming in contact with floating spiles, one of which was run through her side and found fastened in it when she was afterwards raised.

There can be no question upon the evidence that the sudden leak, while the canal-boat was lying at the Fifty-first street pier, was caused by the Manhattan's breaking the plank in the canal-boat's bow. It is immaterial whether this was done by the fender or by the crush of ice between them. From the explicit testimony of those on board the Manhattan, and from their better opportunities for observation, I am disposed to credit their testimony that the break in the plank of the canal-boat's bow was not caused by the pressure of the fender, but by the ice. One of the witnesses speaks of the ice as soft, but all agree that it was five or six inches thick, and it was so hard as to require breaking up by the tug before the schooner could be brought in. One of the laborers who was shoveling coal was knocked down by the violence of the blow; and this blow was probably caused by the swing given to the schooner's stern when she had nearly passed the canal-boat.

A tug undertaking to land another vessel must be held answerable for injuries occasioned by any careless handling of her tow, or by the jamming of vessels beyond such ordinary contacts as are usual and consistent with careful handling in getting boats in place. The danger to other boats from the crush of ice is as manifest as that from direct collision; and in going amid ice, past vessels already moored, other vessels are clearly bound to leave sufficient space, and to proceed with such care and moderate speed as to do no injury to boats of ordinary soundness. The swing of the schooner's stern in this case, approaching within one or two feet of the canal-boat's bow, was clearly sufficient to cause the ice to make the break in the bow, and the leak complained of. The blow, I think, is clearly proved to be such as is unjustifiable, whether inflicted upon a new boat or an old one, and the Reba must accordingly be held liable. The canal-boat had, however, been long in service. Pieces of her timbers, produced in court, taken by the hand from each of the holes by a credible witness, were so decayed and rotten as to be easily broken with the fingers. Upon this evidence I cannot regard the canal-boat in this case

as fit to encounter the ordinary contacts with other vessels to which she was necessarily exposed in this harbor; and I must treat it as negligence in her owners to navigate her amid ice, and to expose her to the increased hazards arising therefrom, without special notice to other vessels approaching her to keep away on account of her weak condition. The Syracuse, 18 FED. REP. 828. I allow the canal-boat, therefore, but one-half of the damages arising from her injury in the slip. The injury from the spiles, when she broke loose from the parting of her lines at Hoboken, arose from an independent act of negligence in the use of lines insufficient to hold her in place. That was in no way the natural, necessary, or immediate consequence of the previous injury in the slip, or of her necessary transfer to the flats at Hoboken. The injuries at Hoboken are too remote to be fairly attributed to the leak caused in New York, and no recovery, therefore, can be had for those. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 21 FED. REP. 733. It is difficult to understand how the floating spiles at Hoboken could be driven through the side of the canal-boat in the manner described by the witnesses; but this circumstance seems to confirm the evidence of the weak condition of the boat.

At the trial full proof was not taken of the extent of the damages. From what appears it is probable that the damages to the canal-boat, arising from the injury at the Fifty-first street slip, would not exceed, including towage and the delay for repairs, $200. To avoid further expense in so small a matter I will allow the libelant to take a decree for $100, with interest from March 8, 1881, with costs; except that if either of the parties be dissatisfied therewith, they may take the usual order of reference to ascertain the exact damage, at the risk of paying the costs of the reference, unless a more favorable recovery be had.

THE ALASKA, etc.

(District Court, S. D. New York. November 28, 1884.)

1. COLLISION-VIGILANCE-STEAMER TO STOP AND BACK-FLASH-LIGHT — Neg

LECT-DAMAGES DIVIDED.

Navigation at a very high rate of speed imposes upon a steamer the duty of proportionately increased vigilance, and the avoidance of every alternative in navigation which involves or increases the risk of collision. Where there is risk of collision with a sailing vessel, the burden of proof is upon the steamer to justify her departure from rule 21 in not stopping and backing, or else she must be held in fault. The steam-ship A., 500 feet long, steaming W. by S. at the rate of 20 miles an hour, when off Nantucket came in collision about 60 feet from her stern with the bow of the brig C., sailing close-hauled about S. The A.'s lights were seen from the brig at a considerable distance. On the steamer, though three officers were on the bridge and two men on the lookout, the brig's red light was not seen until about a minute before the collision. The brig's witnesses testified that a torch-light was exhibited at her waist from 5 to 10 minutes before the collision; the steamer's witnesses testified that no

torch-light was seen until the steamer's bows had passed the brig's stern; held, without determining the fact as to the time the flash-light was exhibited, that the brig's red light being more than one point in range for more than two miles previous to the collision, the fact that it was not seen by so many persons on the steamer who were on the watch for such lights was sufficient proof that the red light was defective; and the steamer having starboarded when the brig's red light was seen at least three-quarters of a minute before the collision, and kept on at full speed, instead of stopping and backing, as rule 21 requires, it appearing that by backing the collision might have been avoided, that the steamer was also in fault, and the damages should be divided.

Collision.

Owen & Gray, for libelants.

Beebe & Wilcox, for claimarts.

BROWN, J. At a little before 10 P. M. on Saturday, the twentyeighth of May, 1882, the steam-ship Alaska, bound for New York, when off Nantucket, about 20 miles south of the South Shoal lightship, in passing ahead of the brig Castalia carried away the latter's jib-boom, bowsprit, and head-gear. This action was brought to recover for these damages. The night was clear, dark, and good for seeing lights. The wind was light,-about W. S. W.,-and the sea somewhat rough. The Alaska was 525 feet long by 50 feet beam, and 5,500 tons register. She had been previously sailing upon a course W. by S., (true,) and was making from 17 to 18 knots, or upwards of 20 statute miles, per hour. The Castalia was a full-rigged bark, 140 feet long, loaded with ice, sailing close-hauled by the wind on her starboard tack, and at the rate of about three or four knots, upon a course, according to her testimony, of S. W. by compass.

The testimony on the part of the brig is to the effect that the steamer's white mast-head light was seen some 15 or 20 minutes before the collision; afterwards her red light, a little forward of abeam on the port side; that at this time no danger of collision was apprehended; but that as she approached nearer and hauled a little further forward she seemed to be bearing for the brig, and that a flash-light was then procured and exhibited at the brig's waist some six or eight minutes. before the collision, and kept constantly burning. On the part of the steamer, the testimony of the three officers who were on the bridge, and of one of the men on the lookout, is to the effect that no light from the brig was seen until very shortly before the collision, when her red light was seen from one to two points off the steamer's starboard bow; that the stearner's helm was immediately put hard a-starboard in order to go ahead of the brig; that under this starboard helm the steamer swung only 1 points to port, so as to be heading S. W. by W. W. at the moment of collision, when her starboard quarter, about 60 feet from her stern, came in contact with the jib-boom of the brig, as above stated. The captain, who was on the bridge in command, was towards the port side when he first saw the brig's red light, and, as he testifies, he instantly gave the order to starboard, and at the same time received the report of the red light from the lookout. He testifies that he at once went to the starboard

« PreviousContinue »