The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-06-08
United States Dis,ricS Court.


JuSE 7--Drc'sos N ADMIRALTY. - hasdler L. lag =
soil he Eer CaSargo-IJe1 su for paiue af ico Boa
On the 18Th of March. 1880, the master OF this r
bound on voyage to Chogrcs al the boat yard Of the
lih.llant eSted boaS for the bank Cabargo thirty
ieet double header and hnf feet wide and
haf feet deep ars and fcn wo ut l64 TO- old boat in
part pay $50 60: cash. sl3i 40; and the 10Th of
March 1850 The same master ordered ano hfr boat,
entry whereof made and subscribed on the shop
book II the ihelant ly the mast,r fuows-o order
for eapain and owners Of bark Cobago % feet long
rect VIDE, feet deep timbers inch keel thwarts,
kneed and fastened with bolts b. taken out
oak kelson two inches thick six inches WIDE lore and aft
the boat cecd up TO the Ceilings set Of sprit-sa
slaIs cash delivery, slSon Orders for both bonts
signed by The master when finished one was carried to
the WHAT of the bark and refused and the other was
refused ut the yard, upon the alleged insui'cieacy
as TO Workmanship and materials and the bark
sailed, leaving the long boat on Pier No. g. and
The other at the yard. Several months after boh
beats sold by the respondent at a loss, under
the agreed price and the money oI which boats sold
was received by the libellant who claims of the
respondent the whole sun as agreed to be paid by the
master amounting TO $500 40. The first question raised
On the defence is to the jurisdiction Of the Court the
ground that this civil contract and not within the
ADMIRALTY that the boats were TO be received freight
ana not for the Particular use of the bark that they
were 10 be carried to Chagres and there sold cargo
upon the proof this objection is overruled The
Tvs merits meets with very contradictory statementson
one side going to show that the boats we'd built Of
good and in all respects In compliance with the
contract On the other side the testimony goes far
show that both boats badly built that they were
weak, made Of bad materials unsafe and unseaworthy
II the cause stepped here it might be impossible to say
be applied But there are two most important crcum
stances upon which we reply with safety, and
when put in the scale, decide the controversy. One
is. that the master who ordered the boas
at the yard nearly every other day while the
building Of the boats in progress. and thus
bad full opportunity to and examine all the materi
ais ufed and the workmanship applied down to the time
when the boats were nearly completed After all these
opportunities to know these facts ard knowing them
the 10th Of April 1850 the day previous to the sailing of
the bark, he wrote and sent TO the beans the follow
ing communication in regard to the boat concerning
which the principal controversy has arisen:-
NEW YORK. April 20 1850.
hr.C L. 1ngersoll-We want you to have the square
steamed boat sent down to the bark Cabargo pier
East river, this day, she will sail out to nght.
JOHN Il. BARSrOW.
AS already minated. this must turn on these
two important facts and the Court is thercupon satisfied
mat after fuch omple opportunity to inspect the
r1a and !nanfhp Of these boats and sei this last
act OF his IN ordering the long boat when finished under
h own 70 be brought down TO the ship II istoo late
oraite the objections set up in bis The libcant
i entitled to decree with and the rule Of
damages must be the actual loss Of the bant after the
sale 81 the Two boats with interest added to that loss
fiom the Goth day Of April. 1850