The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-06-12
BROOKLYN COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT couaT--EAsTERA DISTRICT.

The Right of Way Of vessels-The Duties OF
Large and Small Craft-Imporsant to Pilots.
Before Judges Nelson and Benedict
Union Ferry Company u. tie Steamer Chesapeake
This action brought In the District Court to
damages for injuries received by the ferryboat Manhas
set in collision with the Chesapeake through
the alleged negligence OF the pilot OF the latter Judg
ment rendered in favor Of beants for $6.ss2 ST.
An appeal was taken from Judge Benedct's decision.
Tho following Ia the opinion
The collision in this occurred in the East river on
the I'd OF December 1884, at about nine O'Clock A. n
The feyboat Manhasse out of her slip at the foot
scroes the river 70 the slip at the foot Of Main street. on
the Brooklyn sde The propeller Chesapeake was COM
ing down the middle Of the river laden with company
distance up the river whom she saw the ferybcat
about onethrd Of the way across from the New York
stsrn and permit her TO Keep her courss. as
she was entitled TO BY the settled rule OF navi-
CATION under such 70 dictate the
course she must pursue 90 - 70 enable the former TO
pass her ls across her bows BY the act Of Con-
ress "H two ships under steam are crossing 70 70
on her own saboard sds shall keep out OF the way Of
the other" That 70 simple and plain rule and must
CO in order 70 avoid &. q in
cf collision inc coyelative duty ID also imposed
tie other ahip % keep her course Special circum-
auces have been se up IN this case tho part Of the
propeller 70 excuse departure from the rule namely
hat two sailing vessels in the way Of
no such impidement existed but II there had, IL
would have been easy for the propeller 70 have allowed
and stopped TIL the other vessel had passed. the tide
vas hardly food, which favored such movement. Is
also insisted the part Of the propeller thai when she
blew her Whistles and the Nanhasset slowed, she
had mot again started with Speed the collision would
not have occurred and thai In this shs was
in fault; but the answer is that this twas in
the moment Of danger, and tho pilot was
influenced 70 mako IT. seeing the collision
inevitable in order TO prevent direct and receive
az his vessel did glancng blow, 70 loosen the In.
Jury quite plain the proofs that the collision in
the present occurred from ignorance the part OF
the master Of the propeller Of the rule OF navigation
az prescribed by the act Of Congress- possessed Of
this knowledge FROM neglect observe IL under crcum
stances In whch.t had direct application, and also
even in absence Of any such rule In his mistaken
movement and persistence In Il 70 pass the Manhasset
across bow The clear weight OF the proofs is that
II the propeller had kept her course down the river
collision would have happened We prefer however to
place decision upon her departure from the safe and
xed rule established by law that vessel In the posi-
ton the propeller held In relation 70 the other vessel IL
was the duty Of the latter 10 hold her and Of the
former to keep out Of the way. II should be made
known that this rule all proper occasions will be
steadily enforced and in case OF departure followed
by n collision, the shall be on the offending vessel
10 show clear and undoubted special Of excuse
No such has been shown In the present instance
and for this the decree Of the court below air.
al