The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-08
NEW YORK CITY.
THE COURTS.
uMTtu STATES CIRCUIT coua1-Ix ADMIRALTY.
Decisions on Appeal.
pafora Indna Nelson,


Before Judge Nelson.
Judge Nelson has rendered the iohowihS ueoiSionS
ip the cases entitled as below
Isaac Pratt ~ ct al, Us. The Bark Herotne.-The
collision In this case took place on the morning OF
November 81 1855, some sixty or eighty miles on
Nontauk Point southerly, ABOUT na1-past three
O'Clock between the bark Heroine and the brig Al
moro. The brig was bound on q voyage from Turks
Island for Boston, with cargo Of salt, the bark,
with q light cargo Of hemp and other goods. from
Cronstadt, Russia, to New YORK. The wind was
st.northeast free for the bark which was heading
about southwest by west; the brig about southeast
was struck on her port bow BY the starboard bow
6f the bark her bowsprit broken close to her bow
mast maintopmast, and doing other injuries, as
to compei the master and hands TO abandon
Ing, high wind and hasy, the sea running
nigh, neither moon nor stars. Each vessel
pad full complement Is t.. q T. Lights PLACED a not
. Be- denied that me brig was On the privileged
fourse and that Il was the duty Of the bark to give
tested fhe ground Of defence set up and earnestly
and ably discussed ~ that " consequence o. ne
sSs 81 Sa ra aes he %
Fence and with competent lookout In time 70 make
The proper movement to avoid her. ana tnat the COL
tisioh was the result Of inevitable accident we
ing strongly in support Of this view. and
be free Of doubts and dicutes and Il the question
was original one before me, resting upon the proofs
a. exhibited In the record might hesitate to reach
the conclusion OF the learned Judge below The dark
ness OF the night and storm OF wind ana rain as
detailed by witnesses, must necessarily have greatly
tended to embarrass the discovery OF the lights or
the approach OF vessels. In such state OF the
weather and difficulties OF navigation, 1t should
not likely be presumed that the hands on board
vessels thus exposed to dangers involving life and
property would be remss In their duty, and that
strong proof should be required to the contrary In
order TO charge fault. The question, however,
must mainly In these cases. be one OF fact; and as
several OF the material witnesses were examined
orally before the learned Judge mis- opportunity to
determine the degree OF credit to which their tes-
mine He has arrived at the conclusion that the
bark could have discovered the lights Of the other
vessel In the existing state OF the weather. at least
q quarter OF mile, and which would have afforded
her full time to execute the proper movement to
have avoided her. The weight OF the proofs as to
the distance that the lights Of vessel might have
been discovered at this time is perhaps, with this
conclusion. And IN the relative positions OF the
vessels the starbOardng OF the bark little earlier
than was done would have enabled her to have
passed the other vessel clear. As 1t was the bow
only was struck. What has Influenced my mind in
the case, perhaps, more than anything else Is the
unsatisfactory account given Of the lookout on the
bark. Covered as he was with the maintopsall to
he was in no condition or free to discharge the
whole duty OF O lookout He was not, as he should
have been, the first to discover the lights Of the ap
preaching vessel.
Upon the whole we think the decree should be
Affirmed.