The Portland daily press., 1866-10-18
Interesting Admiralty Cn,e

Pieists oisooi 1fadeN, We're declared forfeited to
the city, no claimants appearing for the same. ~
/ -'~' - lAL - a -------- - So.
Interesting Admiralty Case. '''
Judge Ware has recently rendered decision
on a case in the u S. District Court in this
city, OF Importance to the commercial commu-
nifty, as it tested The validity of contract
made by steam tug to go on a hazardous mis-
sion to a vessel in distress, and involved the
question as to whether the owners of tugs
could afford to assume such risks, and whether
such assistance would be ventured upon at all
The case was briefly this: The bark Helen
Augusta, Capt. Wilson, went ashore off this
port and was in very dangerous position
among rocks and breakers A contract was
made with Capt. L. G. Willard, of the steam
tug Uncle Sam, whereby he was to receive
$1,000 to rescue the vessel. Capt. Willard went
was successful, and the owners of the bark
subsequently demnrred at the price. The own
ers of the tug accordingly proceeded to test the
I question in acourt of admiralty.
/ Hon. Geo. Il. Shepley appeared as counsel
for libellants and the following is an outline OF
his argument, .tpfu
The libellants having successfully performed
the service contemplated in the contract, now
claim the contract price. If the signature Of
the master to this contract was obtained by any
duress, fraud or misrepresentation, a court OF
Admiralty will not consider the contract bind
ing upon the parties, but will decree only a
reasonable compensation for the service render
ed, taking into account the hazard both of life
and property. Bnt in this case there is not q
particle of evidence of any coneealment or
misrepresentation on the part of Captain Will
lard On the contrary, the master of the YES
sci fIIlI of OF kI.nS Su,,
to Captain Willard which could affect the con-
tract price. He knew also the precise situation
OF his own vessel and the danger to be encoun-
tered IN an attempt to rescue her. This Will
lard only knew from the masters representa-
tion. The answer alleges that there was mis-
representation or concealment of the fact that
there was any other tug in the harbor compe-
tent to render the service. The proof is that
the master was fully informed upon this sub
ject and went in search of the other tug before
he went to Willard The evidence is concIu-
slve that there was no single fact material to
the risk or important to be considered in fixing
the Compensation of which the master was ig-
-Herant. He might, and perhaps did, misrepre-
sent to Willard. 1t was not possible for Will
lard to deceive him. .lsll- ,ll el-4
The respondents have proved an offer to re-
fer to arbitrators or to the Board of Trade
The owners of the tug were not willing to re-
fer the question whether they should have the
contract price or less. They did not consider
it fair to go into reference with chance of
decreasing and no chance of increasing the
contract price. tl 1afsff4..fl
They were willing. and offered when they
found respondents We're unwilling to pay the
agreed price to set the agreement entirely
aside and rest their claim ON simple quantum
merit for the salvage and towage service We
continue that offer now, If the respondents
consent ito allow the case to be decided with
out reference to the contract, satisfied that any
Court of Admiralty If not limited by the con-
tract, would award us larger sum.
Counsel then reviewed at length the testi-
mony tending to show the hazadOus nature of
the service, and contended that the contract
price was proved to be an inadequate compen-
satl0n. The pr1ce was a contingent one; if
they failed they got nothing. Libellants were
under no obligations moral or legal to render
the service. If they had been at sea and in
sight of that vessel in distress and there was
no other vessel in sight to render assistance,
they would be under obligations to render the
service and the court would then not take
much notice of a contract made under such
circumstances, because there was no other re-
source for the distressed. But in this case the
master had the opportunity of the whole com
munity befoIe him. (This point was forcibly
illustrated by the counsel) I''r
The proprietors of the tug felt it necessary to
decide the question involved in this ease in
the Admiralty court. They could get insur-
ance only at exhorbitant rates, and the case
pending involves the question whether the
tugs can go to the relief OF distressed vessels
at all. This was the object of the action. The
proprietors of the tug want to know if they
can make fair contract to compensate them
for such hazardous business. j They could not
take the risk without suitable compensation
Their boat was worth $4,000 when she went
to the rescue of a vessel among breakers and
rOcks-wOuld any prudent insurance cOmpany
take her at ten per cent? Private underwri.
ters would have charged fifty per cent. to have
taken her for the service performed. Captair
| Lee 1T phanaa in tx-o hiatt i,
sci would be lost, and the captain of the tug re-
fueed to go, and Capt. Willard, one of the own
ers, had to take her.
Mr.. Shepley quoted Capt. Wilson as to thu
position of his vessel, who says in his protest
"The stern was close in to the breakers ant
there was heavy ground swell all around u.s.
| What was the, risk ,of taking the tug into tina
position? Respondents could not ind a mar
to put that risk down al. 10 per cent The.
had not found one to put it at 80 per cent
They could not produce testimony oput tn
risk at less than so per cent, amounting Il
| $4,000. y " - AE BE G te9 80
They offer $500 and think that generous
| when the risk of life was so great that the cap
tain of the tug refused to go, saying then, an'
| he says now, that the danger was too great t.
incur. Aad for all this they offer three pc
| cent premium and that contingent, for tn
tug was to have nothing unless successful
! contingent fee of three per cent.--one and one
half per cent. for the hazard of life and prop
erty. If they were right, claimants wer
| ready to abandon the case and could neve
again go ON similar missions.
Suppose there had been no contract, an
claimants had come to the court with the cass
what would have been the award, considering
| the dangerous position of the vessel and tn
hazard incurred? Would the court have give
us less than 20 per cent? Can any salvag
case be cited to the contrary? There was $40
600 worth of property saved. Could any on
\ put salvage at less than 20 per cent? Tha
| would be $4,000. Ten per cent. premium of ris
on value of tug would have been 81 GOO
| they had gone to any insurance company an,
described the nature of the service to be ren
| dered: the position of the vessel; the thic
| weatherAgiving the exact statement of de
fendants-and the company had said 10 ne
| cent, would any one say it unreasonable?-
| And that would have been $1,000 If the pre
prietors of the tug had done so would thew M
have been justly entitled to something o,oy
than that? aI lfru 44I.-,t y
If the respondents were willing to ignore til
contract and place the matter before the Cour
the claimants would do it. They were salts
fled the Court would give them more than tn
contract did. A rival captain had told Cap
FWilson-and rival owners said-it was hg
| price. After service of that kind was sue
cessful it always seemed high. Capt. Lee ties
titles that he would have charged $40 an houl
BY his own testimony, he never performe