The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-13
Decision I'm Admiralty.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT.
Before Hon. Judge Ip0ersOll.

THE CAMDEN AND AMBoy RAILROAD COMPANY wi
THE sLoOP THOMAS WALLACE.
FEB. 12-Ddniet Curry and others Us. the SteaSlboo|
John Neilson.-These were cross suits, brought by til
respective owners of the steamboat John Nelson AMI
the sloop Thomas Wallace, to recover damages occasion
happened at 10 AN. on the Gath Of October, 1864, ned
the Battery. Ibe owners OF the steamboat aIleee thu
the steamboat was on her usual trip from New BrunI
usual landing place at pier No. 1, North 1--WE
when she was run into by the slo0p, which was near III
junction Of the North and East rivers, heaain|
to the northward Of west, with the wind about north
east, and the vessels proceeding nearly at right anglo
with each other; that the steamboat stopped in time {
let the sioop pass ahead Of her, and that she might ha1
passed either ahead or astern IL she had seen The steam
boat In time that those on the steamboat did all the|
could to avoid the collision, which was occasicued soeq
sioo ,pa denied Ga s amy l Rals q .. TN their s'0 part, i and 1s alleged Z .S9
there was q vessel lying at anchor on either side Of III
course Of the sloop, so that she was unable TO chang
stop 20 as to allow the sloop TO pass ahead d her, BID
kept on across the bows of the sloop, and thereby CAUSE
the collision; that the sloop was going in q porthsriy 81
rection, close hauled on the wind, and was unable 4
avoid the collision, which vas caused wholly BY III
fault Of the steamboat. The damages claimed BY IN
steamboat were about $500. and by the sloop about s20l
Both cases were heard together, aAd the following dS
cision has been rendered. r
Held by the Court-lt Is found that at the time Of tn
collision the steamboat was not going ahead. The steau
boat seeing that the sloop was bound from the Esl
river up the North river, first slowed, and th<h stely
ped her engine to enable the soop to clear her. That
few moments before the collision she backed, and tn
At the time Of the collision the boat had begun to
back. That the collision was caused py negligence
the part OF the s,oop. That after she had taken hi
course TO 60 from the East river to the North rfv
along the Battery wall, and after the steamboat Ia
slowed and stopped TO enable the soop to pursue tn
coursea without danger, the sloop altered her cour
more to the west, in consequence Of which alteration
course the collision took place. That there was no q
cessi:y for her 30 altering her course, and If shehi
kept the course that she was on when the steanbov
GlnyQ1 md sfappad NO ocnfsinn -auld Iaya taEon MA -
The steamboat did all that was required OF her TO avol
the collision. She WA guilty Of no fauit. She had
right TO assume that the sloop would keep the cour
she was on at the time the steamboa, slowed. That Z
movements Of the steamer were directed upon the ID
that the sloop would keep that course. BY her not ke
ing that course the collision was occssioned. The steal
boat did all that was required of her to avoid II, and $
was in no fault. Decree, therefore, that the libel Oh
by the owners OF the ssoop be dismissed with costs, q
that the owners Of the steamboat recover the dansg
by them sustained, with q reference TO q commissfva
ascertain the amount.