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

| OF the present motion is to have Judgment
entered up 1aunc pro tune se6sthe amount OF the
verdict. d. 81. Cham berlaip, 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 pro
co,Jess0. On motion of Messrs. Memminger,
Jervy and Pinokney, il was or dered that II be
referred to Daniel Horlbeck. Esq, Registrar,
to ascertain and report the amount due to
ccmplainants er the security Of the mortgage
set forth in the bill, and that he have leave to
report any special matters.
w. O. Mcdaniel, trustee Of Eliza Mcdaniel
VS.. VIM. 8. Mullins. debtor. Campbell & Sea-
brook for plaintiff; Magrath & Lowndes for
defendant. Jury No. was charged with this
case, and rendered verdict for plaintiff of
$4056 and cost of suit.
David Van Nostrand vs.. John Russell. D.
T. Co1bin, Esq, for plaintiff; Campbell & Sea-
brook for defendant. The jury rendered ver-
dict Of $136S for plai1tiff.
Caroline Carson vs. Alexander Robertson ct
al. Bill for relief and recovery. Magrath &
Lowndes for plaintiff; Campbell & Seabrook,
McCrady & Son, Simons & Simons, Rutledge h
Young for defendants. The bill was read by
| Mr.. Lowndes. and the several answers by coun-
| sci for defendants. After hearing argument
by J. B. Campbell, General james simons and
A. G. Magrath, Esqs., the court adjourned o.
half-past three P. M.
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 Gary vs. the General Sherman, reported
| in yesterdays NEWS:
1t is not likely that shall arrive at any
other conclusion in this case than that to
which the eviderce has already brought me
no claim on the ground Of contract. Admiral
ty guards the rights and enforces the duties
arising or to be performed on the sea. 1t has
watches over those who go down to the sea IN
ships and do their business ou the great wa
ters. Its rules Of proceeding are not those Of
the common law. They are not technical.
the principles of equity, applicable in each
| case.
What is the substantial justice in this case?
I'm an on her south
near Cape Lookout. and was lying in shore in
| position where q change of weather might
drive her aground, and causes o total loss.
Her engine was useless. She dad sails, but
the evidence shows that the ship could not be
navigated 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
ordinary signals IF assistance from other ves-
sels which might be in the vicinity.
Hearing the signals 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. It was
agreed between them that the Gary would tow
the Sherm IN into Norfolk for SIG, 900.
Ind ft1n vrpko - L.
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. If, though not performing the
contract. she rendered salvage service, and
did not forfeit her claim to compensation by
Under the contract OF towage, the vessels
proceeded some time in the direction Of Nor
folk, when an uufayorable change or weather
that it would take great deal OF time to get
into Norfolk, proposed to change the port of
destination, and 30 to Charleston. The pro-
position was assenied to by the captain of the
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 action, occurred.
cannot reslst the impression made by the
testimony for the libellants, that both vessels
were quite safe at that moment. Undoubted-
~ there was an alarm on board Of the ste am
man reported four and q half fathoms water,
and shoaling. The evidence satisfies me that
tn tins report was an error. The captain Of the
Sherman. however, necessarily became anx-
1ous about the situation of his ship, and
changed her course, Notwithstanding the cap
tam OF the Gary, to whom he called, assured
him that there was no danger: From this un-
mischief arose. The Gary cndeavored to ac-
commodate herself to the movements of the
Sherman. and in consequence Of the maneu-
the Sherman was towed parted, and the two
We sells separated.
In this state Of things it was the duty Of the
to Lay to and Mt from
hawser before the vessel could be safely navi-
gated. Instead Of doing this. the Sherman
proceeded under sail. the wind beng fayors-
BILE, towards Charleston, On the other side, it
was the duty Of the Gary, as soon as possible,
to render the stipulated assistance.
There is much conflict in the testimony upon
the point whether the Sherman made any si.-
''als after the vessels separated. The weight
of tho 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 1t had been cut on the Sher.
man. The captain OF the Gary concluded,
naturally enough, that the separation or the
vessels was Designed. The Sherman had gone
of. as he thought, with the intent to get rid OF
the towage. Under these circumstances he
thought it useless to go IN pursuit.
90 not think that the evidence that the
hawser was cut is conclusive, though it Ia
certainly strong. think that the appearances,
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 Tor the ,conoln-
safe at the time the disturbance arose upon
the Sherman. The steamer had gone of with