Case ID: f_35/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blatchford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Annex Hogg v. The Pennsylvania Annex
    No. 3.
    No. 3.
    
      (Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
    
    July 5, 1888)
    Collision—Fog—Identity of Vessel.
    On tlie evening of February 6,1884, a vessel collided with the steamer Western Texas, which was lying at pier 9, Fast river; but, owing to the darkness and a th-ick fog which prevailed at the time, it was impossible to distinguish clearly the boat which did the damage. At about that time, on the same evening, the Pennsylvania Annex No. 3, on her way from Brookjyn to Jersey City, was in collision with some object in the vicinity'of piers 2 or 3. Suit was brought against Annex No. 3 for the damage sustained by the Western Texas. The claimants denied the identity of the colliding vessel with the Annex boat. Held, on the evidence, that the libelant had not proved that the damage in question was done by Annex No. 3, and that the libel should be dismissed.
    In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. 27 Fed. Rep. 516.
    
      Ewarts, Chuate & Beaman, (Treadwell Cleveland, of counsel,) for appellant.
    
      Goodrich, Beady & Goodrich, and R. B. Benedict, for appellee.
   Blatchford, Justice.

In this case I find, as a fact, that the libelant has not established by sufficient proof the allegation of the libel that the steam-boat or ferry-boat known as the “Pennsylvania Annex Boat No. 3,” on the occasion mentioned in the libel, ran into and upon the steam-ship mentioned in the libel, and then called the “Western Texas,” and caused damage and injury to her. On the foregoing fact I find, as a conclusion of law, tfiat, a decree must be entered dismissing the libel, with costs to the claimant in the district court, taxed at $401.82, and with costs to it in this court, to be taxed.

The objections of the libelant to the attempt to show by the witness Rose, on his cross-examination, statements alleged to have been made by .Rivers to Rose, and to the attempt to show by the witness Rose, on his cross-examination, that Rivers was untruthful, are sustained. All the objections of the claimant to the admission of evidence, set forth in the paper-submitted on his behalf to the court, are overruled.