The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-05-23
OLLIE SULLIVAN vs.. QUIOKSTEP
A QUESTION OF COLLISION.

States Circuit Court, IN an admiralty
appeal from the District Court. 1t
will be seen Judge Greshman's opin-
ion in a very interesting case has been
affirmed:
John R. Hugo and Cyrus o. Thomas, own
ers of the Steamboat Ollie Sullivan VS..
Steamboat Quickstep, Henry L. De1-
Indiana, United States Circuit Court,
May, 1870. Appeal In Admiralty.
There was libel fled by the own
els of the steamer Ollie Sullivan
against the steamer Quickstep, for
collision. by which, it is alleged, the
Ollie Sullivan was sunk IN the Ohio |
River, in consequence OF the negll- |
genee of those on board the Quick |
step in the management of their |
steamer. The defendant answered, |
denying any negligence, and insisting
that the result was caused BY the fault
Of the Sullivan. On this issue the
parties went to proof and hearing be-
fore the District Court, and that Court
finding both parties In fault, divided
the loss and the costs. The decree OF
the court. therefore, was against the
defendant for 81, psf 80 Zone half of
the loss) and one-half of the costs,
and against the libellants for one-half
the costs.
From this decree the defendant ap-
pealed to this Court. The libellants
} did not appeal. Notwithstanding the
general rule that an appeal suspends
the decree of the Court below and
the cause is heard in this Court de
nOUo, and, in certain circumstances,
+, the decree In all its parts may be sub
D iect to revision In the Circuit Court,
I where the District Court has decreed
: against both parties and only one
party appeals; yet, when in such a
: case as this the libellants were found
: to be in fault and decree for costs
v rendered against them and they have
q taken no appeal, it must be assumed.
: think, that they have aequiesced In
: the decree of the District Court and
, that it is not open to inquiry in this
y Court whether or not the Ollie Sulli-
van was in fault. That stands con-
cluded by the decree of the District
Court. The only subject of inquiry,
} therefore, In this Court is whether
le the Quickstep was also in fault as
d found in the District Court.-Stratton
v. Jarvis, 8 Peters 4; Hausman v
Schooner N. Carolina, 10, Peters. 40
y so; Center v. Am. ms. Co., Peters
re 3O7, 318; The Water Witch, l Black
D. 494; Airy v. Merrill, 2 Curtis, @. @
a r., s; Allen v. Hitch, ibid 147; The
; Roarer. Blatchford, G. @. r, 1.
o. The Ollie Sullivan, a small stern
is wheel steamboat, about eight O'Clock
ne of dark, windy and rainy night il
n the month of April, 1869. was de
scending the river Ohio, on a triI
. from Evansville, In this State, to en-
Is ter the mouth Of the Wabash river
at The boat had just landed on the In
lance below West Franklin, anC
almost Immediately opposite the IN
-, per point of Diamond Island. Ii
y backing out from the shore 10 pro
n coed down the river the wind made
- the boat somewhat unmanageable
e and it was necessary to back we'll owe
'n to the island before they could taxi
i'd their course down the river. Th'
Sc boat was on her way down the river
- heading over towards the Indian;
; shore north of and but short distance
Or from Diamond Island; how far is 1
he controverted point in the case.
m In the meantime the steamboat
= Quickstep, a side-wheel boat. wa
u. coming up the river, north of and no
lie far from the Diamond Island shore
Is, 1t was a larger, better steamer thar
II the Ollie Sullivan, and more easil!
managed. Both steamers had lights
% but those of the Sullivan were not il
I'd the proper place, as required by thu
H. regulations of the Board of Super
hv vising Inspectors made under tn
: 18th section of the act of Congress o
u August 80, 1862. The pilot of tn
ne Quickstep saw the light of the Sulli
n van, and blew one whistle, which in
r. dicated that each was to go to star
side and the Sullivan on the Indians
re side. The Sullivan answered witt
nd one whistle, the meaning of whicl
), Shortly after-how long is matte
- of dispute-the Quickstep blew tw
DC whistles, indicating a change In tn
~ manner OF passing, and the Sui
! a Ivan again blew one whistle, show
r.. ing that they adhered to tn
:. original purpose. that each shout,
NJ keep the starboard, or RICH
les hand side. Here the testimony is al
las together in conflict. Those on boar,
no the Sullivan say that as the Quickste
= blew two whistles she began to swip
40 off from the island toward the Indi
Sc ana shore and across the course o
I'D the Sullivan. Those on board th
Ir. Quickstep insist that her course wa
- unchanged, and that she stopped tn
engine and commenced backing a
onca. As soon as those on the Sulli
he van heard the two whistles and say
le- what they supposed was a change o
81. course of the Quickstep, they stoppe,
IT. her engines and commenced backing
" but it was all in vain, and the boat
tly came together. the Quickstep striking
to with her stem the larboard bow o
he the Sullivan, turning her around Will
;; her head up stream, and shortly afte
- she sunk, carrying down some of he
Oh passengers, who were drowned.
he The question Is whether the Quick
res ster was properly managed2 It i
difficult to decide how far apart tn
To- two steamers were when the first sig
I'D nal was sounded and what was tn,
an interval of time between the first ant
~ second signals given by the Quick
I step. Those on the Sullivan say thu
ne distance was FIVE or six hundred
he yards; those on the Quickstep mucl
in less. A good deal will depend also
ira in deciding the question, upon tn
~ distance the Quickstep was from tn,
VIC island shore. Those having charg,
OF Of her say it was from forty to fit,
gs yards only. Those on the Sullivan
Oh that it was much more. After the
- Sullivan sank her distance from thu
~ shore was ascertained, and it is giveI
as being measured at one time, ont
'e- hundred and twenty six feet, and a
49,