The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-10-02
United .totes Circuit Court.
s.,cnrn Hon. ,ladre Nelson.

scroro IIoa, Iadge Nelson.
OH l., <icyyd d NSsor Il ais U.s. The Propeller Tho
mas SpdJ<s Henry Denny IT, The Same. Enoch Chamber
atn g. ne Same The hbes rcd in these by
tn1owpssS OF tho gle and the OF her
90 axasst the Tllomss Sf,arss damages for
scs~., occurring between the vessels the Rariian
river, jersey, the 29d Of August, 1864. Tho Ea-
gle Sv,s tow cf the New Session. which descending
The fyar against die tide with four barges boats
eash ce Of se. yyo abreast and each having another
rived asterU. The Ese was the forward outside barge
the arscafdss!de, aid was fastened ny hawser at
Pier stem ard stern the last mast inside OF her The
Thomas S-As was descending the river astern Of the
Bos.sn her eeSs and IL attempting % pass her
he s naFd side struck the Eagle ana suhs her Inc
channel 80 feet wide at the place OF coli
hson and Doth vessels ware approaching very ap
rupt tara "a tho towards lo nosh, sha towards
The a. DESCENDING There mud uatS on each side
d lie cDse ss lie New Boston approaching this
tirs bsae aas-t the mddo Of the channel, she sud
&~ny took trcs shear towards NE lelt or arboard
SIDE htyng changed her helm, but from the effect
~ theead nde acting upon the cw wnlcn Drought her
ass.y -ros, lle chanrel aud brought the Eagle she
seis, the eitside barge, heavily somewhat upon the
s;s She drar upon which had the eiiect to produce
strain nawscr At tic BOW, broke the o,eet With
fastened the inside hoai, and, from the
OF rs tug swung the mead OF TIC Elg!c thus broken
asc roaa ~ right Angles the line Of the other boats
nd thus csse ~ ths passage . arboaris side and in
dis posira she Sas struck by the Thomas Sparks whilst
Il ao aot u attempting 70 pass that side OF the chan
1cs ao'lGt is attributable 70 ise New Boston any
Of sse Va ges or boss IN her tow and tho only question
il tic essc Is wnctser nis collision occurred without
saul; ~ ne par, G. the Themas sparks The defence set
NJ by The master is, that IL the Eagle had
bsos.n loose from her connection with the
t.S S.ad SWAMP the chanuel the col
As,so not nave occurred as there vas room enough
inF h vessel IA have passed clear OF the tow
xser tho accident happened 10 the Eagle his vessel was
80 a, lr tat na manner or rnoyeent coa nrsvont fhe
o.oy The master WAS witLess i1r the respondent; He
s..s that as vessel was about aquarer OF mile
.e vixen he made up his tnind pass il on the
krbpsra A. be reared IL the tow shecred the
toward 'ne rhoard SIDE rather Of the channel
u c.eeia-d he observes, sit would break the sheer
md st,gge u 80 the lstboasd side We had
farming the bend ia tie ever neared
ue !s..>s Il Keep It's sheer, and teen slowed my
and ay stopped her and the other soat continued
WHY Is stopped boat and let her 90 along
Gr'! oar boom agped 70 the stern OF the tow, then
ec"'ered tist the barge ~ swung out, and rang ogo
hac. ald backed Al another place IN his testimony
DE master sl,s tia; the he did not 90 to the
board because he thought the tow would break her
sheer AID h. thought she would break because he thought
womb keep the channel No witness the part of the
s-!cr-aept varies this account OF the collision given by
No msstec. We aIs satisfied, uion very careful
animation 81 the evidence and especially Of that OF the
aser mat ~ when he discovered the sheer OF the New
s;os,oa ss had i.orted helm could have
passed sarboard siae without any d.icul
~ and TIA; Il was MS persistence in his first dotermna
ton to sss ~ the srhoard after the sheer that occa
.,cn-i N" disaster There abundance of III the
shahn'' !" iaYe passed 70 tue siafbcafd But assuming
.hst She Thomas Sparks t-3 10 have made thfs
n.anyre ~ the rne Of the sheer, then the duty
u he ,nas,cr 10 nave Immediately stopped aud backed
his boat instsd OF dous he admits he stopped he
~ her eicrg u. his bow tapped the stern of the
't before be- rang The he'll 10 back her. The excuse given
ci peissna IL passing 10 the srhoard after The sheer
Of The New Boston ial ne thought she would break IT,
Bot before lac eed rebtiuly prrientiy upon this
conjecture, nc desired 20 persis; IN the he had
adopted stguc slowed stopped his vessel until
ne had e-iained he result Of the sheer Without pur-
suing the examination of The further are satisfied
Ne decree Of the Court below right, and sho0d be
affirmed
atten 6 shaco rs Thomas oosJier-NEtsos, c. J-The
A-l Sized ia this by the lheaut master of The
't George I..., against respondent ia person as
7wrer, 70 recover wages for the yea- fSs4-'55 The
below on TIC case being called heard evidence suf
hnnn in tho
d TIC rc2crccCt Lac vessel and that the
principal question the for the ser
Ficc Any ana referred 70 take proof
nature, extent ana yauc OF the service aud
a.ent sr other deductions be made any and report
Ecn. The case was heard accordingly before cam.
n:ssuIer- and o2.aDcc reported in favor belu;
d $3.50 II. WHICH -crort subsequently confirmed
h" respondent u Is objected that the Court erred
referring The 10 ia. commissioner instead OF
ias,ns ia. testimony ia open court. But cannot
Ia'rcetNe any Foundation Tor such objection.
Fhe Court had ascarsiped from the hearing be-
Tore Inn that she main questions in controversy
n respect 10 accounts between parties master aud
owner OF the vessel and very properly therefore
referred 20 be passed by commissioner The rights
o. the respondent not preiu1ced the whole case
could afterwards DE presented to the Coart upon the
frots ana exceptions tn. commissioners
ssieree 1t has also been objected that the Court had
jurisdiction Of tie norton 81 the claimed
Internal DusiHcs1 ara commerce OF t.n state. But
eui,icicn; answer that this objection has
pclon 10 the service u The year 1885, and the balance
81 wages screed alter deducliag the payment, less
uan the of the wages for that year A great
3. cf testimony has been taken the servic. on the
vessel, whether master clerk, and 10 the com
Potency IS master the vaiae Of the Service, &c Bat
these matters 81 fact depending upon conaic, of
evidence, which sbal. not entertain. W. satisfied
Stl the conclusion arrived by the Court below The
deoree OF the Court is affirmed.