The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-07
tsTLo STATES DISTRICT cOglT-N sDaslrt.
Important Decision.
Before Judge Benedict


Jo7.u Thompson q al rs. ne barge Aria 6c.-In
this case, where an action is brought by John
Thompson ct al, owners OF bark Algiers to recover
tHe value OF long boat crushed by the barge AVA,
the following decision was given
THIS action brought 10 recover for the destruc-
ton OF the long boat OF the bark Algers by being
crushed by the barge AVA during the night OF the
lit OF February 1909. The bark and the barge were
botn mOoreu alongside pier % IN the East river the
IcEg beat was hanging under the barks counter
close down by the water by ropes running from the
stern there being 10 dayits; while in this position
tie ice came INTO the slip during the night with
E4Hclent force 10 part the bark's fasienngs aud
drive her anead upon the long boat, thus dong the
/ jury complained OF. 1t is manifest that the long
bat swung IN an improper and dangerous
place wnere II was greatly exposed TO injury from
lsaaOilng vessels. For this reason the bark must
be . 40 "a laui. llhe fh9nlx, blatch, 21sl the
I-ra.nlng question Is whether there was fault on
tie part OF the barge regard TO her fastenings
winch should render her also responsible Tor the
c!den on the part OF the bark II is proved by the
MAZE that he went on board the barge hearing the
tgs.h that he then examined the barge; that he
found the stern mad parted and that he the tlme
complained 10 tue master or the barge that his line
not sufficient TO hold his vessel. The master OF
tne barge also ID called, who does not appear how
10 have examined the lines OF the barge until
morning when he saw the stern line that had parted.
On the part OF the barge no witness Is called but
WAS made securely fast By stem and stern
lines and inch breast line; that
lCe OF ice came IN the clip which parted The stern
line ana the bow line and pulled on the elect 10 which
the breast line fastened and thus hls barge
driven INTO Tue long boat. He further says that he
hove his boat back by the windass, But 10 tue
answer wnlch IS sworn 10 DT The same claimant, 1t
Is expressly stated thai but Que line parted, eaving
two Ines SIN secured 70 the PIER that IN a few
moments the barge sprung back 70 her lines, aud It
vas ihen discovered that the longhoat had been
smsshed.r The account given in the answer thus
differing from the account given upon the stand
doubt IL raised es 10 the suniciencies OF
tue barge's fastenings, which is further strength
enei b. tue fact that vessel broke adrift
except this barge and that the barge herself from
the pressure Of the Ice, received no injury In this
portion Df the evidence II must be held that the
claimant has failed TO show that the drifting OF the
barge was caused by the overwhelming power OF
tue ica, and not from any careessness or neglect
her iasenlngs. and Is also chargeable with fault.
There being, then, fault found on both sides, the
dalnag will be apportoned. liz taxing the costs
the cerk VIII strike from the bellants bill OF coats
fees the deposiuons because OF their extreme
eligibility as presented to the Court A reference
naP be had TO prove the amount OF the damage
Uness tie parties can agree on the sum. Let
decree DC entered accordingly