The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-08
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
Deeisasn m admiralty.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
n>Eu-~ H.. T-A-A Iuwnpunn

rru~~~~~~~~~~
r.s..~S Admiralty.
UNITED STATES DIsfRIcT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge ~IDgersoll.
FEE. 7.-Loveff n. Meaan s al. %. the Schoon-
er Charles Henry. Elisha 9. Rackstts d al %.
the Steamboat Sssah Amxricd.-These were cross
suits brought by tho respective owners Of the steam
boat South America and the schooner Charles Hen
~. to recover the damages occasioned b . coliaon
between the two vessels, which happened ct about
II O'Clock on the night Of September II, 1854, on tho
west side Of The Hudson river, just below Butter
Hun. The steamboat was bound from Hudson TO
New York, with passengers and freight. The schoon.
er was bound up the river TOT port beyond New
burg. The night was clear and starlight, and oh.
jscts could be discerned at Q considerable distance.
The wind was Q little east Of south, blowing from
tour to six knsts IN hour. There was Q conflict Of
evidence a. to the state Of the tide.
On board the South America there was no enc
forward but the pilot. who was at the wheel. On
board the schooner the mate was st the helm, aud
the captain and . hand were forward on the star
board side, on the lookout.
TIE evidence given on either side was much Of It
In direct contradiction a. to the course Of the two
vessels. The pilot Of the steaner testified that he
was about hall . mile above Butter Hill when he
issn ' sSo tsi ,r ss1 mi1es ~ coming snS sno OR tie ;sd siye e. ss g.s
not fer from the middle Of the river; that he did
not chang his course until after the collision; that he
did not see the schooner when she changed her
half Q mile above Butter Hill; he saw abe had
changed her course, and was then headed for the
steamer, and about o quarter Of . mile of; that he
held bis course along from one to two hundred feet
distant from the base Of Butter Hill, and did not
change 1t until the collision too place, though just
before it he slowed and stopped. Two passengers
ON board the steamer also testified that they sawtne
schooner coming up about the middle Of the river.
Thn fhvoo ON tho Inrk 10 tha uNtnnna~ Nn %La
other hand, testified that the schooner crossed the
river to the west shore at about Magazine Point, in
order to KEEP. up the west shore, as is the custom
in going up the river there with 2 southesly wind
and an ebb tide; that soon after they got on the
wett shore they saw the lights Of the steamer above
Butter Hill, and did not after that change the course
Of the schooner, but kept mp the river within Q few
until just before the collision, when the steamer
eheered to the west, and then, to avoid the collision,
the schooner lu6ed, but the sheer and the lufr we're
not sufficient to prevent u.
The jibboOm Of the schooner struck the larboard
.wheethouse Of the steamer, by which the jibb00m
was broken and the wheelhouse slightly injured.
The DO Esprit Of the schooner then struck the steam.
chimI ey Of the steamers larboard boiler, by whisn
the chimney was broken, the boiler Displaced, aud
other serious injury inflicted. The schooner was IT,
jured but alightly.
Held by the Court-That upon the evidence the
tide was ebb; that it Is Q rule Of law 30 often rec0g-
nized that the aid Of cited cases ID not required for
lite support, that . steamboat when at night travers.
ing waters where it may be expected that II win
meet with other watercraft. shall keep Q faithful
lookout forward, whose exclusive duty It shall be TO
looktus, and that the pilot cannot DO considered
such q lookout; snd where . collision occurs, aud
there IL NO such lookout, that il negligence on the
part Of the steamboat, which IL prima facie ~evldezcs
that the collision IL occasioned by her fault.
1t ia commended on behalf Of the steamboat that
this rule does not apply to boats navigating rivers
and narrow streams OF water. No such distinction
is found to exist in the rule as Mid down by the gu.
NV Gnnv< Tho vuIn 10 rrn~o1s - IA n--Is~xs<-
and ia adopted for the benefit and protection Of sail
Il is commended, further, that the rule does mot 90
ply to those rivers where 1t is the general caston,
as upon the North river, for STEAMBOATS, TO be navi-
gated without q lookout other than the pilot. This
rule il o mandate Of the Law and cannot be abro-
gated or annuJfd by any general usage to disregard
Is, ADOPTED BY those against whom It 10 to be en-.
That the neglect Of the South America TO have
such Q lookout must be regarded as priv.a facie
evidence that the collision was oOcasioned by hsr
fault, That s is the legal presumption, which must
fectory proof on the part OF the steamboat, and IL
Inc eestjmopy given IL 30 contradictory tEat NO fact
can be found upon it, then IL will follow that
tne g',na Iac'e case made out against the steamer
That where witnesses on board of different ves.
sells are in conflict, 1t Is Q safe rule, particularly
when the facts to which they testify took place at
nesses who were on board the vessel where the ects
took place, The Witnesses being equal in point OF
credit in other respects.
That II the witnesses on board the schooner tell
the truth as to their course and acts, then It was
The duty OF the steamer, according to the well
known rule Of navigati,n on the North river, to
have avoided the schooner. They were In 8 better
situation to know the position and movement, and
what took place on board the schooner, than those
on beard the steamer; and II they have not told the
truth, they must have wilfuIly perverted Il, while
those on board the steamer may have been honestly
mistaken in the opinions which they formed a. 10
the position Of the schooner. That tho weigh: Of
evidence in that the steamer Eheered to the west
before the collision, and therefore the manner in
which the blow was received ~sustsins the claim Of
the schooner, that she was coming up on the west
side Of tie river.
That upon the whole e~vi!en:e, there is not saEis-
factory proof to rebuff the prina fdcid case Of fault
on The psrs Of the steamer, arising from her having
no look out. The evi6enc e is very much In conflict,
nus the weight Of It rather strengthens that pre-
The decree must be, therefore, tba. the libel In
the first case be dismissed, with costs, and that the
libellsnt in the second case recover the damages
sustained by the schooner, and that IL be referred
TO . commissioner to ascertain and report what
that damage Ii.
Supreme Court.
Before aoa. Judge Mitchell.
FEE. o. tzctiidm BiJasaH ps. Anth0ny Tie
mann and Fieldu.-Tienann Owls In fec, sud
leased to Fielder, without any covenants against
n~uisances or the erection Of steam engines, q lot al
Joining the plaintiffs house and loL The deed TO
did not contain any such covenants, being exc
cpted on q sale on foreclosure Of q mortgage, nor
did the mortgage contain Thorn. Bat Mr.. Raggles,
while be owned both lots, and many others In the
neighboYh0od, conveyed them all with such cSve