The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-04

~ S~~~
verdict. D. b. mberlaip, Esq, Attorney
General, appeared for the motion; A. g.
Magrath, ESQ.,, contra. The judge took the
pape1s and reserved his decision.
George Parsons, citizen Of New York, vs.
John G. Lawton, citizen of South Carolina
Bill for foreclosure Of mortgage ordered prt
confesso. On motion of Messrs. Memminger
Jervy and Pinckney, it was ordered that it be
referred to Daniel Horlbeck, Esq, Registrar
to ascertain and report the amount due to
complainants on the security of the mortgage
set forth in the bill, and that he have leave te
report any special matters.
VIC. Mcdaniel, trustee Of Eliza Mcdaniel
vs. VIM. 8. Mullins, debtor. Campbell & Sea-
brook for plaintiff; Magrath & Lowndes fol
defendant. Jury No. / was charged with this
case, and rendered verdict for plaintiff OF
$4O56 and cost of suit.
David Van Nostrand vs.. John Russell. D.
T. Corbin, Esq, for plaintiff; Campbell & Sea-
brook for defendant. The jury rendered aver
dict Of $1363 for plaintiff.
Caroline Carson vs.. Alexander Robertson Ell
al. Bill for relief and recovery. Magrath d
LOwndes for plaintiff; Campbell & Seabrook,
McCrady & Son, Simons & simons, Rutledge q
Young for defendants. The bill was read by
Mr.. Lowndes, and the several answers by coun-
sci for defendants. After hearing argument
by ]. B. Campbell, General James Simons and
A. G. Magrath, Esqs., the court adjourned a:
half-past three P. NJ.
The argument will be resumed this morning
by A. G.. Magrath, Esq, for plaintiff.
The following is the charge in full Of the
Chief Justice, in the admiralty case Of the
steamer Garyvs. the General Sherman, reported
in yesterdays News:
1t is not likely that shall arrive at any
other conclusion in this case than that 10
which the evidence has already brought me.
| II ia cause of salvage. The Ebellant makes
! ty guards the rights and enforces the duties
arising or to be performed on the SEA. It has
been called the human providence that
watches over those who 30 down to the sea ID
ships and do their business 90 the great wa.
ters. Its rules Of proceeding are not those OF
the common low. They are not technical.
They aim at substantial justice. according to
the principles Of equity, applicable IN each
| case.
| What is the substantial justice in this ca'e? ?
| The steamship Sherman on her voyage south
ward was disabled By the breaking Of her shaft
near Cape Lookout, and was lying 10 shore IN
| a position where change Of weather might
| Her engine was useless. She had sails. but
the evidence shows that the ship could not be
nayigated safely without the aid OF steam.
| Where she was her sails seem to have been OF
no use 10 her.
In this condition OF distress, she made the
10 fof 20 m
sells which might be in the vicinity.
Bearing the sigoals the Gary came to her
relief, and negotiations took place which show
| the estimate put by the respective parties on
| the assistance needed and it's value. 1t was
agreed between them that the GARY would tow
| the Sherm IN into Norfolk for $4,000.
Under the circumstances OF this case, the
contract cannot be the measure Of damages,
but it IS proper to take it into consideration as
showing the views Of the parties at the time.
| The fact that the contract was made cannot
deprive the Gary, as salvor, OF her right OF
compensation, il, though not performing the
| contract, she rendered salvage service, and
| did not forfeit her claim to compensation by
her subsequent conduct. :.
Under the contract Of towsge, the vessels
| proceeded some time in the direction OF Nor
| folk when an unfavorable change OF weather
took place. The captain Of the Gary, satisfied
that it would take o great deal OF time to get
into Norfolk, proposed to change the port OF
destination and go 70 Charleston; .ss line Pro
Sherman, and the courses OF the steamers
| chan red accordingly.
They proceeded safely and easily in the
new direction until they reached Frying Pan
Shoals, where the difficulties, which give rise
to this acton, occurred.
cannot reslst the impression made by the
| testimony for the libellants, that both vessels
| were quite safe OF that moment. Undoubted-
| " there was an alarm on board OF the ste am
er, and there was reason for it, for the leads-
man reported four and half fathoms water,
! and shoaling. The evidence satisfies me that
| this report was on error. The captain OF the
Sherman, however, necessarily became anx.
| ious about the situation OF his ship, and
changed her course, Notwithstanding tho cap
tain ofthe Gary, to whom he called, assured
him that there was no danger. From this un-
necessary change OF course all the subsequent
| mischief arose. The Gary endeavored to &C.
commodate herself to the movements OF the
Sherman. and in consequence Of the mane1-
vres of the two vessels, the hawser BY which
| the Sherman was towed parted, and the TWO
We sells separated.
In this state Of things it was the duty of the
| Sherman to lay to and wait assistance from
the Gary, which was obliged to take IN the
hawser before the vessel could be safely nav-
gated. Instead Of doing this, the Sherman
prOCecUCQ uuIeT sd Iuo Wiuu uoluS iusoA u
BILE, towards Charleston. On the other side, it
] was tue duty of the Gary, as soon as possible,
to render the stipulated assistance.
There is much conflict in the testlmony upon
the point whether the Sherman made any sig
,ials after the vessels separated The weight
of the evidence is that she did not. On the
other hand. the evidence shows that when the
hawser was brought on board the Gary, there
was evidence that it had been cut on the Sher.
man. The captain OF the Gary concluded.
naturally enough, that the separation OF the
| vessels was designed. The Sherman had gone
| of, as be thought. with the intent to get rid OF
the towage. Under these circumstances he
| thought it useless to 90 in pursuit.
90 not think that the evidence that the
| hawser was cut is conclusive, though it is
\ certainly strong. think that the appearances,
regarded by wi nesses as evidence that 1t was
| cut, may be we'll enough accounted for by the
peculiar circumstances under which the
hawser parted. The captain OF the Gary,
however, certainly had reason for the conclu-
| sion he came to. He knew the vessels were
safe at the time the disturbance arose upon
the Sherman. The steamer had gone off with
out apparent reason; there was, what seemed
| TO hrm. strong evidence OF fraudulent intent
| to evade the contract on her part.
Although this conclusion does not seem war
| ran ed by the evidence bafore me. thero was,
| in the circumstances ofthe case. iu my opinion.
| q sufficient excuse 10 tho captain OF the Gary
| for not proceeding in search OF the Sherman.
He is not entitled to payment under the con-
/ tract as be would have been if he had followed
! the Sherman and offered to continue in the
performance OF it, aud that offer had been re-