Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1854-01-27
An 1nterest,ng steamb,a, Case

In the superior cour. of New York, Judge Duer
presiding, an action against steamboat captain
tStone) and agent [McCullcugh) for carrying pas
sengers past landing as tried. Plaintiff took
passage with Ms family on board the steamer
Francis SkTldy, for Cat'skil, on the North Rive .
The boat was bound to Albany aud advertised to
stop at Catskill and other landings. On the day
plaintiff took passage the Skiddy, she had
rival i'll the steamer Al do, which was aheaL of
her, aud in order 10 keep up with her, defendant
it is alleged, caused an undue and da ngerous guam
tliy OF steam 10 be generated OH board OF the Skid
dy, which drove and propelled her at an unusual
rate of speed. The Aida keeping in advance OF
the defendants boat, the Cattskill landing was
omitted by the Skddy, and the plaintiffs family
and sisteis were carried by aud landed ut Hudson,
togeth' with several other passengers. After ar
irving at Hudson, the plaintiff, in company with
some friends. chartered another steamboat 10 con-
vey them back 10 CattSkill, where they aIiived
some hours tteG the usual time. This action is
brought for breach of the contract, and for refus.
ing 10 land ;he plaihi II at Cattskill, and for mali
ciously aeiaimtns and mpr.soning Linn on board
the defendants boat against his circumstances nd
commands. Damages were laid at $3.50 The
case was argued by Mr.. o'Connor for plaintiff and
Mr.. Van Bnren for defendant.
The Judge, in his charge to The jury, said there
were two questions for their determination. First
whetler.one or both the defendants were liable
and, secondly, VIII; amount of damages we've an
plcable TO Il e case. The action was for a viii.
tul violation OF duty in passing Cattskill without
landing the passenger; and il the omission 10 do
so was not wiilul the plaintiff could not recover.
In order 10 show that ii was wilful violation il
was not necessary TO prove that any injury was in
tended to the plaintiff. IL The defendants were
hnV1 ~ IN, lnE u
to do SO, 1t was sufficient TO charge them with all
the consequences resulting taerefrom. As regards
the defendant Stone, there is no doubt that the
plaintiff must recover against him, because lie
might have performed his duty and did not do so.
II one OF The owners desired him not to land there
lie was Sound nol to oL-y him, but was bound 10
carry out the understanding. made by all the own-
ers. AS to the question of McCullough's liability
II was not necessary 10 show that the captain act
ed under his orders. Mccullough was on board
and knew that the captain desgnedly passed Cats
Kill, and he is responsible aud Liable rs il he
gave an order to do SO. When he saw the captain
violate his duty he should have made him perform
1t. Ii there was race with view 10 getting The
defendants boat into port before the other and
that was the reason FOR not stopping at Cattskili
aud that Mccullough knew OF that race and SIS
one OF The ownCrS approve of it, then he was re-
SponSl5le for the conduct of the captain. ~.
Then Us to the question, was there race? II is
not necessary that there should be previous
agreement between the parlies in relation to il:
nor was it necessary that it should have been
known to the pasSen. ers OH board. The question
is, did the defendants boat try to excel the other
boat in speed by using an unuue amount of steam,
and ii in doing so was approved by Mr.. McCull-
ough and the master Of the boat7 As 10 damages
if the action was Tor m re breach OF conduct, tue
plaintiff could not recover more than ON intemni-
" for his pecuniary loss in the sum he paid to
carry his family from Hudson 10 Cattski'l and for
his less of time. But in this case the Court had
no Hesitation in saying the jury were not limited
III giving damages Tor the PLAINTIFFS pecunary loss,
but they might give damages for the injury 10 his
feelings for his wife and children who were under
his care, and not only for Ills mental sufferings,
but if it was race the part OF the defendants,
the jury would be justified in giving exemplary or
vindlctive damages to mark their sense of The cul-
pable conduct OF the masttr and owner and 10
deter others from following their example. Sealed
verdict.