The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-09-18
AFFAIRS OF THE CITY.
Important Commercial Decisions.

APPEAL IN ADMIRALTY. George IWtbA dn1
othos o.. The Steam Tug Keystone
The libel states that the sloop Thomas Lynch,
with cargo Of eighty tons Of coal, left Philadel-
phia, bound for Brooklyn, 7th November, 1913; that
on the 10Th ofthe month, whom beating out OF the
Kills, and near the entrance into the bay. OF New
York, the wind and tide against her, she had STOOD
over to the Staten Island shore on her larboard
task, and having stood in as far as was Prudent
without going ashore she went about. ana haa Just
filed away on the starboard tack when the steam
tug Keystone having in tow several barges heavily
laden with coal, bound to New York, overhauled
the said soop, and ran into her, one OF the oarges
having struck her about midshps, cutting her down
to the water, and causing her to fill and sink In
about ten minutes The ans wer states that on the
day mentioned in the libel the steam tug, bound
from New Brunswick to New YORK, win neayy
Kills after dark, when the slOep Thomas Lynch
was observed ahead, beating down the kls, and then
on the starboard tack; that the tug being little
south of the middle of the channel, the sloop cross
ing her bows, the same tack, passed her a short
distance starting across the kills on long tack, the
wind being N N E. that just after the sloop had
passed the tug in safety and when only about three
hundred feet ahead, and one hundred feet to the
leeward, and, at the time, considerable distance
from the Staten Island shore, ard under necessity
Of lacking, and but short distance from the tug,
she suddenly went about on her larboard tack,
bringing her broadside to the tide, then running
very strong food and by the joint force of the wind
and tide, drifted down upon the tug so rapidly
that it was impossible to avoid the collision;
anu Cnat III was caused Dy tne suuucn anu uueSpoct
ed attempt of the sloop again to close under
the bows of the tug, after she had crossed them
once in safety, and when there was sufficient roo
for her to continue on her course without lacking
The question the case lies within marrow limit;
and some of the facts very material in the determ-
nation of it, are not in dispute Both vessels were
bound for the New York bay and we're coming out
of the Kills, off the Staten Island shore, With a
pretty strong wind and tide ahead. The sloop was
ahead of the tug, her long tack from the Jersey
to the Staten Island shore, and was seen by the
captain of the tug, half mile ahead, while she was
on that tack. The tug had heavy tow, and was
moving only at the rate OF mile and half the
hour. The captain Of the tug first saw the sloop on
her long tack, over his stafboard bow. As the tug
was the Staten Island than the Jersey Shore
the sloop must have been pretty well on her way
towards Staten Island when first discoveries and
tEen she was half a mile ahead. The sloop having
run out her tack and reached the Staten Island
shore, off New Brighton, came about and filled for
the other tack, and adjust got under way when she
came in contact with the outside tow, the arboard
side of the tug, striking her little after midshps,
and cutting her to the waters edge, when she sunk
Now, it is not to be denied under the circumstances
stated, and not insdspute, but that the sloop had
right to keep her course, and run out her tack and
at the proper place and time to come about, and
fill FOR he other tack and that it was the duty of
the tug not to interfere With her. but to take care
and avoid her. The captain of the tug was bound
to assume the sloop would Iun out her tack, and
then come about, as this was her duty as well as
her right; and tbe burthen lies upon him to show
that the soop failed in her duty in this respect and
was in fault, by rea son Of which the collision hap
pened. This burthen has been assumed, and it is
asserted that the sloop failed to out her tack,
and came about unexpectedly and suddenly before
she bad completed it, and took the hands on board
the tug by SURPRISE and thus produced the collision.
The whole case hinges upon this allegation In the
answer, and proof in support oft. and it depends
the evidence of the master and hand at the helm
Of the sloop, and the captain and pilot Of the tug
the former proving that their vessel was within
thirty yards Of the wharf at New Brighton before
she came about, and the latter that sac was from
40 20 ON vs.s r. III, the 81 re q. the .ne Mona
Of the other witnesses speak ofthe fact The master
of the sloop stood at the time on her bow, and had
the best opportunity to Judge as to the distance,
and could not well be mistaken; besides the fact was
q subject Of conversation between him and the
man at the helm. They were both aware Of the
danger Of the collision, from the proximity of the
tug, and her unchecked advance towards them, and
Of the necessity of all proper measures to avoidit
They exercised their best judgment under the cir
cumstancos, the wind and tide being ahead, and
somewhat strong, as to the point near the wharf,
beyond which it would be unsafe to pass before
coming about, and are responsible only for sound
and judcious exercise Of it. Nor is there necessa
rily any discrepancy this point in the evidence.
The captain and pilot Of the tug speak Of the dis
tance from the shore, not from the wharf, which is
shore, Of ITSELF afford, Information to aid US in
determining the question at issue To make it n.
all available for this purpose, the distance Of the
wharf from the shore should have been given.
from the Shore and still had run her tack as far as
permitted by the wharf The proof, therefore, in
own Judgment fails altogether to esta olish any
fault the part Of the sloop in this respect, but
have been drawn up into the wind, and held that
position, instead Of filing away until the tug
had passed. But this, it Is agreed by
the experts, would have been perilous
experiment, regard being had to the wind
and tide, and that the msneuvre had to be made
in the night. IL was peril to which the tug had
no right to expose her, and for which there was no
necessity. She was her tack by the captain,
some half q mile ahead, his vessel moving at the
rate Of O mile and half the hour. With proper
attention to bis duty, and assuming that the sloop
had fulfilled hers, by running out her tack before
she came about, there was not the slightest diff
Guilty in avoiding her. IL required nothing beyond
proper lock out and competent skin in tho navi-
cation Of the tug The captain had perfect con-
troll of her. lie could have checked her speed, or
stopped, at any point within the half mile, when he
found her approaching too near the vessel on the
tack. This be was bound to do; and no excuse
that can be given Is Admissible, under the circum-
stances, can be sanctioned by the court, except
the establishment Of the fact, that the vessel the
tack was guilty Of fault, and which occssioned the
accident. II she has conformcd to the laws OF Davi
cation, NJ done in this case, general rule,
The captain Of the steamer must so manage his
eel to avoid hef, and II collion occurs, she Is
responsible. The rule is inhexbe, and should be-
sternly adhered to. In my judgment, IL subjects
the respondents in this case. The decree below
ust be reversed and the referred TO the clerk
to take proof of the loss aad damage.
In EQUITY.-IIiuiam 1fkiaSOn rs. William
Boavdp,au, yr-Ths is bill filed for the allowance
of q patent for an improved steam pump, unler
che 10th section Of the patent act OF 1896. SEQ
also 10th section Of amendment. March >, 1899
Goth section at large, p l23, 35L) Each of the
parties applied to the Commissioner for the patent,
claiming 20 be the original inventor; and after a
full hearing 1t was granted 20 the defendant: The
complaint appealed to Chief Justice Crauch, who
confirmed the decision Of the Com issoner.
The question before The Commissioner and Chic
Justice contested, was question Of tact, namely,
which Of the parties was the FIRST aud original in
yentori The same question is now pefore NJ, res,
ing upon the proofs which were before the DOM
missioner, and also additional testimony taken
snce the fling of the bill. The opinions OF the
Commissioner end Chief Justice, delivered, on rem
dering their decisions, are before ne. They show
that the application before each Of these officers
underwent very full examination prior to the
granting of the patent TO the defendant; and