New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-02-13
COLLISION THE Law REQUIRING LOOKOUT
AND LIGHTS

COLLISION THE LAW REQUIRING LOOKOUT
AND LIGHTS
In the United States Supreme Court yester-
day the following appeal brought by the claimants OF the
propeller Hypodame from decree Of the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the Southern District OF New
York. of collision between the propeller and the
Hbeusnts schooner, Chester W. Chaplin made. The
collision occurred the Hudson River, little below
Dunderberg Point between that and Caldwels Landing
the westerly side Of the river and the line OF the
night Of the list OF December, 1862 The schooner was
proceeding down the river voyage from Albany to
lumber The tide was the last OF the ebb; the wind
light and about southeast The schooner was moving at
westerly side Of the channel. and drawing IN toward
Caldwell. with view to anchor and wait for change O
tide The schooner exhibited lights The propeller
was her way from Newly to Albany without tow,
She bad no person properly stationed or acting as
lookout: After passing yerplanEs Point, about two
the easterly side of the river course which, If 1t had
been continued would have carried her 10 the eastward
the schooner; but when she reached point well on
the schooner port bow her helm was put 70 starboard
cbooner The crew Of the schooner edlaely shouted
have her keep on but although the shout was neaf
osr te Sahead pcnetrafpe 10 feet or more into her
decks and causing her To- sink before she could be owed
into shOa Water The District Court adjudged the pro
peIer - FAULT which was affirmed IN the Circuit Court
Tho claimants appeal contendDg that on the change OF
~eswaSS for greater safety in passing such descendng
Tow, after signalling by the steamwhtstle her intention
seen from the propeller by Of the darkness Of the
night IN the place where she was course relative
that OF the schooner to pass her from oneegth to
hsn mile on, the person navigating the schooner with
R0tce OF such change Of direction by the propellers
Ights shnuid have exhibited light TO show that the
schooner was the river and her position. II Is the
recognized rule IN this country that vessels sailing at
night narrow waters must exhibit light TO an APP
preaching vessel There was no culpable Inisnanage
neat fault on the part of the propeller IN the garou
f4rs alleged any other, as to the lookout The
not one that carries nor
largo rstclass propeller but one OF class naygaed
rivers by the master who Is also pilot and q
sieers0an, alternating with pilot and q steersnan,
and which the master steersman, on the masters
watch acts 00k-Out and the pilot or steersnans on
the pOHs watch acts lookout while the other steers
Ruth Che propeller should be adndged 10 have been IN
fault the schooner clearly ia fault ia not exhibiting
light Oh the propeers change OF direction toward her,
sud tho propeller should not be held responsible Tor the
whole amount of damages. The aJpellees answer that
the sohooner in her proper ple was well and SUM-
cie1ty Manned had competent lookout, and was ~ al
other respects properly Davlgated, Is not eonfroverted
hh Gully fault alleged against her 10 that she did not dis
play ahght TIE approach Of the propeller But under
the circumstance she noe required 10 do So The
law od not AZ that require her 20 carry nor even
70 exhibit Dgl unless the night was so dark that she
c0nld not hhFe been by avRiiapt lookout on the
yroyGh ar Enough 10 have avoided her. III was not 80
aah Dut tnnt sine might have been seen Tar enough 70
nave Oen avoided u there bad been such as
tne ~" rrv1reo This Court affirmed the Judgment
.fSr aDUhlee3 M.