Case ID: f_122/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE ELY. CARDIFF S. S. CO. v. BOWRING et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 9, 1903.)
    No. 117.
    1. Shipping — Stranding—Liability op Charterer.
    Evidence held to support a decree holding that a time charterer of a steamer was not liable for injury to the vessel by stranding, claimed on the ground that she was subchartered without authority, for an unlawful! purpose, and that at the time of the stranding she was employed hy the siibcharterer in service, in violation of the neutrality laws in time of war.
    Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the South•ern District of New York.
    For opinion of district court, see 110 Fed. 563.
    Appeals from two decrees of District Court, Southern District of. New York. The first decree was for $3,518.60; the second decree (in cross-action) dismissed the cross-libel.
    . J. Parker Kirlin, for appellant.
    Wilhelmus Mynderse, for appellees.
    Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The facts in the cause have been most fully stated in the opinion of the District Judge, and their bearing upon the propositions of law advanced by the respective parties most carefully discussed. Inasmuch as we concur alike with his findings and conclusions, we deem it, unnecessary to review the record or the opinion. It may be noted that, in view of the exorbitant gratuity promised to the captain by the subcharterers — an amount nearly three times as great as his pay — we are not inclined to hold the shipowners bound by such of his acts as might be attributable solely to his new employment and were inimical to the owners’ interests. At the same time the irritation resulting from the failure of the enterprise, apparently involving the loss of his gratuity, has made him a bitterly hostile witness, whose testimony adverse to the subcharterers is unpersuasive. The claims of deviation, increased risk, etc., are, in our opinion, made up by greatly exaggerating trivial and unimportant transactions; and we are entirely satisfied that on her last voyage the Ely carried no contraband, was bound to no blockaded port, engaged in no unlawful enterprise, and that the stranding was in no wise caused by the new employment, nor by any instructions to hug the shore or to make short cuts, but solely by the carelessness of the ship’s navigators.

The decrees are affirmed, with costs.