Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1856-12-12

MottIe; married her; and following
suit, in consideration of the blush he
caused her and the bang he gave her,
Hodijah Pamboger married Widow Liv-
er; and to make it an ever thing all
round, Mrs. Wallspout died and Mr.
! Wallspont married Miss Sally Starch
and Dorothea expects to be married soon.
Got man picked out. And that is the
whole story. True, every word Of it.
True Flag.
We copy from the Boston Daily Ad-
vertiser the following report of case
lately tried before Judge Sprague in Bos.
ton, the L. s. District Court.
1t is case Of importance to our coast
ers, whose rights, as well as duties in an
important matter are clearly defined by
one of the best Admiralty Judges in the
country.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUET-11 Apr..
RALLY. OCTOBER, 1856. CoLLIsIoN-LIABILIrY
| or STEAM TowGoAr.
Nm. Pope T. al., Libe2onts, rs Steam.
'r r. B. Iorb-s.-The facts are suf.
ficiently stated in the opinion Of the
Court by
SpKAGuE, J. This is libel in r,m
against the steamer r. B. Forbes. for
damages caused by collision between tho
schooner Eliza, owned by the libellants.
and the Romance of the Seas. ship Of
about | GOO tons. towed by the steamer
and lashed to the steamers side. Tho
steamer is a towboat of about $50 horse
power. The schooner was lumber-laden
and was beating up Boston harbor on tho
evening of June 4 and the collision took
place about ten o'clock somewhere be-
tween Long Island Light and the "Cas.
tie
l. The first question that arises is,-
| Whether the steamer is, in any event,
liable:
1t is contended. in the defence. that
the steamer was the mere motive power
that she was the servant Of the ship, or
her owners, are alone liable.
1t is to be observed, in the first place.
that the ship had no motive power Of
her own. Her stils were fnrled, and
whatever motion she had was impaired
to her by the steamer. The only scpar-
ate motion the ship could have would he
such lateral motion as might result from
a change of her rudder. The ship and
the steamer were so lashcd together as
to constitute one combined moving mass,
whose momentum was the result of the
steamer motive power acting upon tho
aggregate bulk and weight of both ship
and steamer. And such being the fact,
| must conclude that the steamer had :he
entire control of the ship; and if there
was negligence in the present collision,
the steamer must be held liable.
! The fact that the stermer was hired
for the service OF towage, can make no
difference. This is proceeding in rem,
and not IN persoham. Generally speak
ing, in & proceeding IN rem, no regard
is had to the owners. as such. One chief
henett of such proceeding is. that the
law puts its hand on the offending thing,
and without any regard to the matter
of ownership, gives remedy in favor Of
the injured party. against the vessel it.
self which has caused the damage.
1t is not necessary. in this case. to de.
eide whether the ship is also liable
That is another matter, and is not now
before me for consdt ration.
1t has been contended that the steam
er was uuder the control of the officers.
or the pilot. of the ship. But if such
were the fact it would not exoncrate the
steamer, nor affect her liability as to
third persons. But the fact of such con
troll is not proved. The testimony Of
both the captain and mate of the steam.
CT show that the orders, at and about
the time of the collision, were given.
chiefly, by the officers of the steamer
1t was, at least. divided command.
/ II. 1t is contended on the .evidencs
'l[D That the fault was on the par. of tho
schooner, or (2) That the accident was
inevitable.
AS to the latter, it must be verv ex.
traordinary state Of circumstances that
could make the accident inevitable Tho
more intelligent witnesses. on both sides,
testify that the night was overcast with
stars appearing here and there, and that
the schooner could be seen at a consider.
able distance,--tar enough to have been
avoided with due precautions on both
sides. Several of the witnesses for tho
defence, it is true. say that the night was
very dark. But if it was 90 d rk that
the schooner could not be seen, then it
was not night for such large ship and
SO powerful a steamer to have left the
wharf at all to go down the harbor where
vessels are very numerous both outward
and inward bound. In either view il il
clearly not case of inevitable accident.
Where, then, was the faultf So far
as lookout is concerned ! am satisfied
that the ship and steamer had q good