New-York tribune., 1870-05-24
THE COURTS.
limited STATES DISTRICT COURT.

In tho case of .Angu. Nicholson agt. The
Ship Chancellor her tacke. &C. Judge Bistchford has
Ects are The schooner Bride, an American fishing
vessel at anchor on the Grand BANK OF EeWIound-
2d Of September 1893, when at about Pm Of that day
the ship chancellor voyage from New to Liver,
ss Sslpns pa o point and her beam
the starboard side, struck the schooner on the sr
board This suit brought for $500 damages by the
Of the schooner The evidence was that the fog
nothing length ahead of the ship could be seen the
studding sails with all her officers and deck,
efficient lookout tho togalant and her fog
schooner was anchored in 80 faoms Of water between
30 and miles south Of the eastern shoals Of tho Grand
Bank. and when she discovered the proximity Of the
ship, blew her fog-hOrn and rang her bell. In
his opinion Judge Batchford says that ordinarily the
before the carefuness OF the injured vessel can be at
tackled but in this the question first TO be determined
reviews the Regulations preventing collisions tho
water" one OF which s that steamships and sailing
that the schooner was provided with horns and bell
and that when the horn from the ship was heard norm
we're heard and reported by the ships lookout Where;
upon the ships helm was ordered port ior tbe soua
aterward the schooners bell heard and the helm OF
the ship ordered hard starboard but before ~ was
half over the collision occurred The reason for the last
order on the ship the supposton on the part OF the
captain that vessel was crossing ms pows rom STAT
OF her being anchor 1t quite apparent that after
fhe horn OF the first heard the collision was
neytabe and that the changing OF the ships course did
not mpar the safety OF the schooner. On all these facts
he thinks those command Of the schooner grossly at
fault by Of her violation OF the law In lying at
anchor without ringing her bel and, when warned OK
her danger Of blowing horn instead of ringing bell
and left upon her the necessity OF proof that her neg
geDce in no way contributed to the calamity In th ne
Thought the schooner had failed 1t had not been shown
that n the schooner had sounded her bell from time To
time and as often demanded by the thickness or
the fog, the location Of her anchorage, and the
state OF the wind prior to hearing the shlps
horn such bell would not have been heard ~ the
Nor was 1t shown that had the schooner rung q
bell instead Of blowing horn when she d there woo
have been time for the ship to avoid tho COLLISION INC
contrary the evidence showed that proper ana they
use of the scho0ners bell required by the law pon
before and after hearing the ships horn, would nave
averted the accident OF resulted In a less disastrous
lisOn Those command OF the schooner did not exer
cise a proper degree OF vigilance in not sounding tnr
bell once every five minutes, required by the reGu
tons In view all these facts, the alleged TOO hlgh
rate OF speed ship could not be taken into con-
alteration The schooner not having shown herself inn9
cent of negligence, the action could not be sustained
Joseph H. ChOate for lbelant NJ. T. Beebe and Charles
DOn0hue for claimants.
Walters ct al agt The Steamer Redfed-LfbeI for COZ
Rsion damages $5O0The evidence on the part OF the
libelants is that the 9th day Of October, 1851 tne
schooner Sarah L. Merritt on voyage from AiDany "
Hartford laden with sand beating down the HUI
son River against headwind; that between ana IN IN
the afternoon while standing the east slde OF the
river close hauled her starbOard tack the steamer
With two barges in tow struck her amdshps, and run
ming her bow upon the schoOners deck stove n0e III
her side and sunk her. Case still on before Judge Batc.
ford scudder Carter for lbelantsj Robert Benedct
for claimants.