The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-08-18
United states CircaAt CsNrt
Before Chief Justice Neasoa.

Before Chief Justice NELSON
nxpoRrANr MERCANTILE AND ADMIRALTY GASES d.
CDED.
Arors, IY-rsusoSs in the following cases argued be-
fore the Cour, during the May term were TRANSMITTED oy
the Judge 10 the Clerk
Alexander Coss rs Georos Lao This is q motion for
49,. risl the part Of the defendant, aud which has
l very luy and ably argued BY the learned counsel
~ ulon the trial Is given accurately and In extenso ia
I.. upon hch the motion u founded, and after
o. TIE arguments Of the counsel see no reason for
changing the direction given 70 the jury whether
The law or the facts and refer 70 that charge express
Motion for new trial denied.
w'll'am Redyard and others rs. James W. Paa;ips.-
This is an action brought TO balance received by
amount OF the freight which he claims retain The
was shipped at New York for the plaintiff in the ship Ohio
soon after leaving New York the vessel encountered
violent storm which caused her to leak and that the
wss obliged 70 put back 70 the port OF departure One
Bell grain broker and Luke President Of the Board Of
Aessurers In the city, examined the condition OF the
cargo, and they to the conclusion that was SO
much damaged, that after the best attention bestowed
upon it, in endeav'ring TO prepare FOR reshipment
reshpped there not the slightest prospect or proba
by Of the arrival n the port Of shipment in specie, and
recommended lis sale by the master for the benefit OF
whom may concern, and tho sale made according
ly. II appeared thai the ship, which general oae,
re6ed and reshpped her other cargo 70 liverpool her
port OF destination. and Al no time conse nplA.sd
cause is upoa those facts whether or no, tbs
owners are entitled freight The question very
Angus ct ais, Insurance aSd Banking Company, How,
500, Cos, 607) was Indirectly involved IN the frs,
question presented on division Of opinion In the Court
below and the Court there held that the underwriters
would be liable for freight rs total loss II II should be
found by the Jury that there was destruction In specie
Of the cargo that IT had lost its original character at
the port OF Distress that total destruction in specie
would have been inevitable from the damage received
1t had been reshpped before could have arrived at its
of do Tnp In
lion before upon the facts arrived at in the Tue
shippers were not liable for the freight but the under
writer's. Judgment for the Plaintiff for the amount Of
freight retained with interest from tho demand Of the
same.
Charles Goodyeor IS james Bishop and otasrs This
motion 90 the part Of the defendants to show cause
why the suit should not be discontinued 10 founded
upon the counsel OF the nominal psiath. The motion
hold not important to the application OF the principle
II is sufficient II they possess such right under the pa.
entities them to the protection sought and of
that there be doubt We agree that the plaintiff
may claim indemnity, against costs, which, on proper
application would be provided for by the Court. The
motion RENTED the ground that the suit Is brought
the plaintiffs name for the bepe6t of his licensees
Peer GroR and Nhe's US. the Seamship Hermann. :
This is libel in admiralty for a collision between the
bark Reindeer and the ship Hermann the night Of the
cath of August 1884, in the chops Of St. Georges Chan
neil The bark was on her way from london to Boston
the steamship from New York to Southampton The hight
not very dark We take the facts stated by The
chief officer Of the Hermann. He deck al the time
and had genera charge OK the vessel and ~ the third
SION Their statements concur and clear and concise
The chief mate says he was walking on the port Side Of
the quarter deck and hearing the bells indicating
object in view the port bow he stepped forward
the paddle box and discovered the object the port
and Immediately gave the order TO port helm which was
obeyed He thought the object vessel standing
the eastward After the order the Hermann began to
come round 10 the southwark and was approaching tho
vessel and he then discovered under SAIL but not
clearly enough to enable him TO determine how she
was standing, be however repeated the order, "hard
covered the vessel was standing by the wind, which
was from the northwest, but could not tell which
tack, and he then gave The third order "hard
aport" which WAS also answered, aud then and not
before II became evident that the vessel standing
her starboard tack, and this not minute and
half before the collision The Herman going at the
rate OF eleven miles hour, neither sackened her
speed slowed backed up until after the collision The
night could not have been vey DARK for both the chief
and third officer say that they discovered the object
which turned out to be vessel on her starboard tack
close hauled mile and half distant The chief officer
admits be had known the position OF the Reindeer that
Ia, that she standing the wind he would have put
her helm to stasboard instead Of giving the order port
under her stern The fault OF the Herman is
too obvious 10 require obser vaton She should
cessty Of the case unt the true position OF the Rein
deer could be observed The only point in the is in
thsaueson OF damages We are not satisfied from the
proofs that there any necessity for rccoppering the
Reindeer. Indeed In our IN gment, the whole scope OF
the tho 70 's ss. s deduct
charge for demurragc and affirm the decree deducting
$S,7S7 &c. with interest from the report Of the commls
sion.
Russell .Ssyis rs he S,eamJonf r. L. MoJsy--Th Is
appeal from a decree confirming the report Of tue
Conmiss oner Of the damages in OF collision The
aggregate OF the bills proved for repairs &C. Is 81 60s
%. The Commissioner has reported damages to the
amounted OF % 262 80 we add iassre for i've years
october 1859 upon the bills repairs SC Of 81 COS o.
which 3562 50 makes the aggregate 81 60 which de-
duct from the amount reported leave balance of 81 Coo
So that must have been allowed for the fourteen days
dcmursee. The facts left by the examination before
Com seoners uncertain TO for the basis Of
allowance for the detention. They speculative,
jectural opinon, 10 which limit rule be
applied and VIII CHI lay the foundation for the
action a court this subject. We shall therefore
strike the item for demurrage 81 099 co. Costs
allowed appeal to neither party against the Others
Police IntelliGence.