The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-04-24
important DcCisaOns In Admiralty
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUNT
BEFORE Hon. Judge Belts.


port to the port Of Cambridge in Maryland, with privilege
of another port the chartcrer agreeing 10 furnish rl
cargo OF timber and lumber. The vessel TO Cam
bridge but there mol full cargo there, and at the
other port the master informed that ne could have the
balance Of his cargo he would take certain timber. The
master deening the timber too large TO 90 the brig
declined take il, and brought this part cargo to this
por. and claimed the full charter money Held by the
CourtThat under the ruling Of the Circuit Court Of this
dist let in the OF Beecber Bectc decided ia
Sertember, 1855, the fregh,er violated his contract
if he failed 10 supply the cargo stipulated and Of
size and shape, and AZ the sides OF the snip, an
condition fitted for being taken slowed board.
That the master Is competent witness, unless II Is
proved he has other Interest In the cause than that
Of charterer He gave the Charter party as master and
agent That the full Cargo stipulated not supplied
AT Cambridge; tina; the clarterer having the " privilege
Of landing place the river devolves upon him
to prove that he pointed out such landing place 10 the
master, and thai sufficient timber provided for her
alongside the ship TO ccpee the cargo That If the case
Is decided upon the issue shaped by the pleading inc
claimant fails to prove That he produced his timber along
side Of the within reach of her tackles SO as 70 con
stue performance Of his contract, and tbehpei'ant
would accordingly be justified in returning 10 his home
port and demanding damages consequent upon the breach
the pleadngs from denying that the charter party Was
fulfilled respect oCambridge and that the lbelant esta
bshcs his right 90 freight for full cargo accordingto tae
charter party. Decree for ltellant, with reference
TOWING coNrRAcr-NEafIGEScE
Cherries a. HsasAsr ,s The Seamto0 Bcsor.-Tfe
libel fled in this case by the owner OF tho canal
delph!a Steantug ard Navigation Company, Of the
Boston agreed 70 tow The Union with her cargo OF ccsl,
from Philadelphia u Rordenown, and from New Bruins
wick 10 New York and that the Boston did take her in
tow at New Brunswick, but by carlessness and negi
gence she sunk the way and the hbelant claimed
to recover ~ for the value the canal boat and her
cargo. By the CourIhe undertaking sued upon in this
not that OF common carrier nor fully that OF
toWage the agreement TO tow the canal boat from New
Brunswick New York being qualified with notice TO the
agent of the ibelant that the canal boat would
be allowed 10 go in the line that day, but only
AZ hia ri M q her al
of navigation, and when thu river was greatly i'm.
peded with ice much that the steamboat would NOT
accept than half her usual burthen OF tonnage.
The grounding OF the steamboat on her passage
down occasioned BY. the natural incidents of
navigation that period Of the year. and il not chargea
Die 70 want Of skill cu!pabe negligence in the officers
and Of the steamboat Nor the loss OF the canal
boat and her cargo owing to the IT % the eTs or a,e
fault inatenon In her management, Is impu'be TO
the agent Of the bent in charge OF the canal boat at the
time. The case hinges upon Questions oil fact The evil
dence Is muiuiarous and no way in harmony several
points but my Judgment the weight OF exonerates the
steamboat from blame in the occurrence, and the libel
must accordingly be dismissed " ith costs.
FoRFErrRE-EvrpEyCE-yrw TRIAL.
TG anS e sn ~ se ay z h%o as SS t eS ),
forfeit the goods seized land under section 90 OF the
Revenue Act Of March 1923. The owner pleaded the
general ISSUE and the tried Sept % 1856 be
fore jury which rendered verdict in favor OF the
United States and against the property. all the charges
against it, The claimant moved for new trial on
case made on the grtrnd that the verdict unau-
horized by the evidence and against the charge OF
the Court, which was that in order to forfeit the goods
the government must prove that they the manufsc
of foreign country, aud were imported and
landed In the United States without payment Of duties
The claimant Edward J. Lane, purchased the goods afer
their seizure and with notice thai they charged with
being struggled When seized they were in possession OF
one James Rose and clsi,ned be his property. and ii
was proved that at the time Of the seizure Ross made
statements which might well be understood 10 be car ad
missions that he was the owner Of the goods. and st
they had been Struggled. Held by the CourtThst the
verdict without evidence to support T. Therewxs
direct and positive proof that the goods were foreign OF
smugQed but The evidence well warranted the verdict If
the Jury believed that the intended acknowledge
that they had been brought in candesney from abroad
had paid dutes That lane having taken his right
after the seizure and with full Of their condition
holds them subject TO the legal liabilities they had incurred
for the jury determine whether the evidence supported
the charges and that legal reasons are shown foe dis
turbing their verdict Motion for new trial denied ant
| Judgment ordered on the verdict.
| CUers-wusHss srEs MUST H PAID.
j. A. and j. u. 'Srcor rs. The Steamboat ihslaad.r =
This was an appeal from taxation Of costs by the clerk
Allowing an item OF sl1O rs witness fees the belant
II appeared that the witnesses in the bcaDts employ
on wages ssSsednS the e np %
saton while attending court and this was the ONLY evidence
Of the payment OF witness fees TO them Held ~ th'
Cor1hat the right 10 witness fees Is derives
wholly from statutory authority That the law nowhere
nlthoriz the substitution Of equivalent debt or eqai',
ing TO the by witness rs OF his fees oy
The sutton The sutton acquires The right 10 judgment fo
bus witness fees only on the hct OF hls having actually
rad the money The taxing officer is not empowered u
TAX ma accoun, between the witness and the party VIII
| summoned him b ascertain whether balance on tei
general dealings remains payable 10 the wines equal
The amount Of the fees Chained. Appeal allowed ana taxa
wv Before Hon Judge Melon.
| cmiJsio> ~ TIN kvu EyER-
Dennis Fboun and osheys ot ne Seaprpg l'uto --Ihl
libel was filed by the owners OF the schooner Charles Hep
Ins against the Pluto 20 recover damages for colsios
in the Ts, River The wind was southwest and the ud
cbb the schooner beating down the river On her Jar
board tack and was crossing from The Br0okyn 70 y, y,
Pluto was coming up the river, on the New ork side
with heavy tow on her larboard quarters; she wa
ascending against the tide nj rate cf speed not 20 excee
y quarter or half mile nm hour. The schooner cam
about nearly ahead of the tux and gagged down upon net
causing the damage TIA. occurred Ihe person IA cnre
was in the act Of coming about lie might have ru
the New York shore with safety beige he tackled
and thus have avoided the collision. Tho stopped i'm
mediaicy, and seems 20 have done cv H1ing, unde
the circumstance, Ia her power 70 PREV The injury
The want or proper lockout on the schooner
" the hands had seen The tug IN tine ia
collision could have been easily avoided E sad us
the Iluto was in fault ia not being In The middle ~ th
river or as near As might be- regard bcu, had IA c,be
vessels navigating t. directed by The state law Bat
docs appear that this omission led TO the collision,
In any way contributed 10 H. furnished no reason 70
the schooDer's unnecessarily lacking about ahead q 70
steamer This was gro lnaenlpn 70 any on e is', ~.
time not In command of Its ordinary master, but
charge Of one temporarily engaged, and who wi~ man
and attention were Indispensable Tho decree Of the ccu
below, Diminishing the libel, we think right add shoul
7ncnas Beu oot T7-rra, Hrnt-This ia o libel ned ,
Bell TO recover balance due for rakDg and removing IN
steamboat Cricket OF and from sand bar at the mouth
Shrewsbury Inlet, n. j. where she had been ssrandet
I, appears that Hunt owned the Steamboat Conndenc'
which ran between the port of New York and slrcw
bury Inlet that her engine having failed he empoye
and chartered the Cricket the 9Th of July, 1870,
Peck the owner 10 take her place. and thai while tht
ernployed she WAS stranded above stated. Tbs hbe
lant Bell, was engaged TO get her on the sand bar 2
$3.50 of which sum balance Of ESQ remains unpe'
The court below decrecd Tor the respondent and d
tho libel There "a sufficient evidence that tho contra
was made by Hunt with the nbelant for the service
question. On the contrary, the weight OF Is thai vi
. | made by Peck, the owner. Hunt was present when
made but for susht that appears took no part In
negotiation Peck did. Indeed the hbellant was givon
understand by Hunt according 10 the proof that Peck "
the responsible at the time the contract wn made
IL supposed that Hunt may DO msie liable a. chsrercr
| the hbellans But aside from tho consideration Oh
, the contract made with Peck, and not with him,
docs not appear upon what terms the Cricket was cha
tered She may have been navigsted by the master nj
hands cf tho owner, and hence the charterer mot ut
Responsible or the safety Of the ship There 20 found
ton, therefore, laid for the inference sought 10 be rats
, of the liability of the respondent on this ground