The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1862-06-29
United states District Court.
IMPORTANT TO STEAMBOAT owNERs-THE srEAMER

METROPOLIS COLLISION oAsE
The Nec London Transportation Cossplsy U.s. The assam-
boa Metropolis and William Byocn Muser.-rhe tsst-
nony this tried before the late Judge ngsr
soll who died before he able to render decision.
The testimony subsequently read 10 Judge Shpmah,
who has rendered elaborate decision Ia the case.
This suit Instituted by the lbellants, Of the
steam propeller J. N. Harris to damages sur
fored by the latter In collision with the steamboat Me-
tropolis owned by the claimants appears from the
proofs taken in the that the two boats at the tmo
Of The collision, were running regularly through Long
London and the Metropolis between New York and FAN
River. The Harris small vessel, little two
sz, Her business was principally the transportation
OF freight, though shc carried some passengers,
and had several on board at tho time of the
controversy. The Metropolis belonged TO tho
largest class Of sdewhee passenger steamers and
time Of the collision the vessels were pursuing opposite
coursesthe Har lis being bound from New York TO New
York They met and coiidsd in tho open sound, few
miles to the south and eastward Of New Haven light
tho Harris having passed about an hour before. Both
boats moving at tho time or the collision-the
Harris very slowly, and the Metropolis at high OF
speed The latter struck tho Harris about twelve
and sinking her almost instantly The owners OF the
Harris have filed this libel and arc seeking TO recover
for tno injuries suffered By their boat The disaster was
as we'll as largo damage to property But the only ques
lion presented consideration the merits Of the
10 that which relates TO the Of tho COLL
sion. Tho claimants havo raised question
a preliminary character, which prevails
must operate complete bar to the suit.
From Judge Shlpmans view OF the evidence he says
II follows that tho Harris Is not chargeabo with any
fault which contributed to the accident and for which
hs owners 10 be hold responsible In this suit And
IN coming to this conclusion, l assume the light pro-
duced Court TO BIO the which the Harris had her
boy, and While by no means intend TO intimate that Ia
my opinion such light sufficient for propeller
on all occasions, thS 1t was adequate tho night and
under the circumstances " this disaster and that had
theFo been proper lookout board the Metropolis
sighted to have cleared Indeed already
remarked il IS dcult Considering the state OF weather
and atmosphere which prevailed, to why q good
lookout could not have discovered her sails and hull
enough to have enabled the Metropolis have avoided
hor, and il l. more difficult to discover any
thing in tho testimony OF the pilot Of the
Metropolis which wouli justify the inference that
he would have discovered a bow light the
Harris, If she had had one OF the precise
character which the claimants insist she should have
had. Ihare other points raised on the argument,
and pressed with great learning and ability, but the
conclusion to which have arrived renders examna
Il Of them unnecessary IL this place. decree must
be entered Tor the 0eants with an order OF reference
TO ascertain the damages During my examination OF
the voluminous evidence in this case, havo felt
never absent though unavaing regret that tho case
could not have been decided by the able and la
mened Judge who presided at the trial when the proofs
taken and whose comprehensive, exact and lUmi
nous Judgment would have shed light on every branch
OF tho controversy The most digent perusal and com
parison OF tho OF evidence has doubtless failed TO
which they revealed during tho narrative Of tho
witnesses and if have erred in the view which have
taken Of the that be corrected by higher
and more competent tribunal.