New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-12-18

In the United States Circuit Court yester.
day an interesting question of contract and
repairs was pronounced in the case of the
Southern Dry Dock Company VS.. Steamship
Vim. Tabor ct ais.
The Judge says substantially as follows,
according to the Times report:
The defendants, Halves Bowen, bought
in February, 1866, the steamer VIM. Tabor
from the United States Government.
At the time of the purchase the vessel was
in good condition, with the exception that
she leaked sufficiently to make it proper to
have her docked and her caulking and cop
pering repaired, not TO such an extent as to
render her unseaworthy-thi was required
by the Board of Underwriters, and the fact
of her having been in government owner
ship was another reason why these Under
writers would not insure her or freight
upon her until she had been docked.
Her other defect was that she was badly
"sagge that is, her bottom had become
curved and bent and had sunk below its
original line.
The defendants, in the beginning of
March, made the usual verbal application
for docking their vessel In the dock kept by
the plaintiffs, at that time the only dock in
this port capable of receiving and lifting
vessel of the size and weight of the VIM.
Tabor.
The plaintiffs consented to hire their dock
as requested; had they refused, the vessel
would haVi been here a comparatively
worthless piece of property, as they could
not have employed her usefuly as COM
InerciaI vessel, as the defendants would
have been compelled, without insurance, to
send her to some distant port for dOckage.
The nature and terms of the contract be-
tween the plaintiffs and defendants are to
be gathered from the testimony of many of
the witnesses, all of whom agree Civilians
and Foley having testified 20 the agree
ment), that in the docking (receiving and
lifting the vessel and securing her on the
blocks), the dockm& 'ter had and must have
the entire and absolute control OF her.
The principal alterations the owners de-
termined on making, upon acquiring the
vessel, for the purpose of making her sulta-
BILE and profitable to the Texas trade, was
the building of large new cabin, the work
upon which was actually commenced be-
fore the application for docking.
On the fifteenth of March, the Tabor pro-
ceedsd to the dock, and was taken charge
of by the dock manager, Mackay, who pro-
ceede6 to put her in. He made mistake
in estimating the extent and shape of the
Tabor's "sagg," an extraordinary one, be.
ing of much greater size than usual, but the
mistake, from the nature of the contract,
must be treat as one against which the
defendants v ere warranted.
The consequence of this mistake was, that
as the dock rose out of the water, lifting the
steamer, the whole weight OF the vessel
rested upon the blocks amidships, the blocks
fore and aft being too low for the bow and
stern to bear upon them. he raised the
vessel higher, and her immense weight
upon a single point of the dock caused 8
part of its frame to give way and sink. Al
this second effect took place, the sinking
of the dock frame lowered the blocks amid
ships and the vessel lowered with them, sc
49, 4. l. A<,wa
the blocks, which had been placed at those
points, and the vessel rested securely.
IL has been commended that the vessel wa
strained and made leaky by this accident
butts were started out by the ehock-but
do not 6nd this to be the fact; on the con
trary, the whole direct injury was sutfere'
by the dock. TO say the least it does no
appear from all the evidence taken togethe
that any injury whatever happened 10 tn
steamer herself by the giving way Of tn
dock, or If there were any such injury
what IL amounts to.
After the steamer, on the breaking dow
of the dock went 10 her former mcorint
Halves and Bowen suspended the improve
ments previously commenced on her, di
charged the w0rkmen who were buildin
the cabin, and this was lett very far from
finished condition.
PLAINTIFF proceeded to repair their docI
and they strengthened it, under inspectiO
Inexperienced marine surveyors and engiz
GERS.
In the meantime the defendants elect.
not 10 dissolve their contract with plai
tia nSr to seek dockage elsewhere, al
NIOte several letters desiring TO be inform.
when the dock would be ready for the 4
Dor, cte.s IN none Of which did they deDad,
an inneeiate compliance nor hint an
tention to claim damages for delay. Ont
contrary, the wording indicating dispo
ton TO Rccnmmodate tile dock compan
and on oae oceaeion. when one of the d
PENDANTS Wa expresely INTERCEPTED II tn
Intended 70 Cain damages for delay, 4
answer implied they hadsno such intentio
tOn the first q june. fsee. the plainti
wrote to defendalts to send the willis
Tabor to the dockSs enfl7 TODAY Is "
can. We shall be ready % take her ui5
soon as abe comes alouIziae on the thi
or fourth the Tabor was seccessfullv docke
stripped, cauiked aud recOiUelsd. md vIal
tiffs Dill for the same in $6eS1 Ia Il prov
to be correct fa
The Judge now proceeds at NonaIasral
length to pass upon the probsbnilq.
whether, during the interval betwetN
first and second docking, the Taboo co
have made money, and then follows tie
cree that there be Judgment In faVo
plaintiffs for S507l lG.