The New York herald., 1863-12-03
,,.,,., -,c,.sv,,,1,,, Court.

A~rLAL ~ Apa:.ALil-cOILisioE IN THE EAST
RIVER.
Drc - T. Lore Is. The SeGn,od BedfoId.-NEL
ao,. @ The libel VS. died in this to recover
damages fer collision betWoen tho schooner Mary d.
lao and the steamboat Bedford on the East river. on
the ing of Dee ubcr L. 1855 Tho schooner lay at
Al cher about g., middle u the river the track OF
the icrfybuats the Wall street ferry, which from
the fot of Wall the New York side, 10 and from
the foot of street, the Brooklyn side The
o lson a., pscc about eight o'ciock the morning
There was a fog aud hood tide. the wind southeast
The struck on her port sice near mldhs,
while tho terry "t WAS 0u hr passage from the book
lyn t1ue New tofk side that occasoned the dtnlsg''
which very serious. he scaOo had 81 ancl"r
about Twelve O'Clock the day pr cpdins 1t the laco
collision, charge OF the mate tue oapain
and pilot beag absent The mate b d been warned by
the lot the Bedford tht morning that MS vessel was
I'm the track the terry ats, ana dense log was
coming I've should trip bs anchor pass u gu 'ne
lido cut of the way Ihe mate ustd Insisting 'lt ne
had rs good risht e thee rs the Terry oo"ts hhd 70
On the trip oi tho ferry '"'l tue Ooon tooA
place. The pioo.B very t3l ana Slcf 'oat the
schooner ,yas in or near the track terry boats.
Indeed the mate himself states that, while lyins at an
chr from the preceding day the Terry DO passed him
ON his . 81 ebb ldg ana stern oud tide taking
hts vessel up or the river as was ebb or Hood
Que Of the ordinances (section ~ alcie chapter
20 sc pol, OF the revision OF le5s provides that no
ship or snail lay at anchor in the Fast river within
tho distance sixty yards IRON direct line between
the landing places Of either OF the public ferries across
the river IMPOSING line Tor the offence. his ordi.
IA nee Is made in pursuance OF po" er conferred uron
the city by the Legislature u the state IL is very
.
Engaged navigation OF the river The place Of the
anchOrng of vessels the harbor o New York s under
the authority OF the city and ITS exercise Is mdspensa
Die, with view TO the convenience aud good order OF
vessels resorting thther. Il fault the part of
che schooner casting anch within the forbidden lin
IL, and still greater in not removing from when
tho attention mate called to 1t and warned OF
his danger. think the terry boat was also IN fault in
hot avoiding the schooner the pilot knew her position
and that The had refused ~ change ms location
cannot but think that II greater precaution had been
used Notwithstanding the density OF the fog the collision
the damages AppOI toDed and as II does not ap
pear ferry boat sustained any injury tho present
damages which ii 900, and ordered In favor OF the
party iu the court boow-the appellants allowed their
coSts In this Court.
REVENUE CASE.
Thomas n. Poroc,y e al. vS Hiram Barney.-NElsoN,
C. J-Ths action is brought to recover IN excess or
duties raid under protest one hundred and nine
packages "bark Peruvian" by tho steamer DOrussia
from Southampton to this port. The duties paid
the Slst OF July, 1861 The importation under the
the Collector with duty Of por ad palore The
plaintiffs ins.st that they exempt from any duty
The nineteenth section Of the above act Imposes duty
Of ten per ceut ad odlorem upon the articles enume
BARK II this sectitn stood alone, the right
70 impose the duty Ia question would DO plain. But
the twenty third section 0f the act which
oxempts articles enumerated under IT, embraces in the
y for his claim Ia tho OF congress. In this d
houty conflicting claims We know OF no other way OF
solving 1t than by applying the well settled rule OF
etrucOu In the Of two ropugnAu provisions Of the
act and which is that the last provision shall pre-
vail. speaking ths latest and hua intent OF the law
makers Another primo pie may aGo be invoked which
II. In cases Of serious ambiguity IN the language OF the
Aot doubtful classification VI articles the construction
Il la favor OF tho importer duties imposed
upon the citizen upon vague doubtful Interpretations
Judgment for the plaintiffs for 81 ,4e4 rs.