New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-01
THE COURTS.
Fourth District Court-Judge Taeard.

Fourth District Court-Judge Taeard.
Nissen ct al. W. Baker ct al and Good
Intent Towboat Colnpany.-This is an ac-
| ton in personanl against the owners OF the
steamship Sherman and tOwboat Tillie c.
| Jewctt, by the bark Nathille, for Si6a9 81.
| damages resulting from collision in the
! Mississippi river, the steamship Sherman
asserting q unconventional demand for
S25oO, damages alledged to have been sus-
| tanned by her. g.
| The collision occurred November 4. 1860.
near midnight, about fourteen miles below
the city OF New Orleans. The Jewett was
descending in the middle of the stream,
with three vessels iii tow, two lashed on
her port side, and one. the bark Mathlde,
lashed OH her starboard side The steamer
Sherman was ascending on the eastern side
OF the river, and, it appears. was crossing
from the eastern to the western shore when
the collision took place, the bow of the
bark Mathilde coming i'll contact with the
starbOard bow OF the Sherman, causing
serious injury to the former AMI soIue
damage to the latter.
/ 4 large number of witnesses have been
examined and a mass of testimony taken,
the perusal OF which has satisfied my mimi
clearly that the disaster was attrih uta BILE
entirely to the iauit of those in charge of
! the steamship Sherman, she being navigated
! with a speed and ia a manner both culpable
and reckless. .t,f-
The Witnesses examined on the part of
the bark Mathillc fully rorroboratc those
of the towboat Jew'ett. and establish clearly
the following important facts: lJ
l. That the collision occurred in the mid
| die of the river. and not near the western
shore, stated by the witnesses ot the
! Sherman.
, That at aud beforr the time OF the col
lision the tow Was descending in the middle
of the river, which was then one nile III
| width, and that the course of the Sherman
! was at an angle, up and across the river,
| directly across the bows OF the tow. This
! fact is illustrated by various diagrams and
| sketches made by the witnesses and an.
nexed as :; part OF their testimony.
| ,. That the steamship Sherman did not
alter her course and keep to the lett as in
| tlicated by her signal of two whistles it was
| her intentien to do.
| 4. That when the collision became immi-
nent, the engines of the tow boat Jewett
| were stopped and reversed while the steam
ship, Oh the contrary. kept on with great
| speed unchecked, and in reckless disregard
of the rules Of navigaton; and that her
| officers, after the collision, manifested. a
! censurablc indifference as to its conse-
| quenceS.
! The sixteenth rule of navigation adopted
by the Congress of the United States,
| requires that every steamship, when ap-
! preaching another, SO as to involve risk Of
collision, shall slacken her speed. or, i;
necessary stop and reverse" Brightley's
Dig. Laws u. s., vol. =, p. 429, sec. %.
And these rules are applicable now to all
vessels navigating rivers and other waters
in the United States Brghtley's Dig, vol.
2, p. 429, sec. 3D.
There being risk of collision, the duty Of
the steamship to slacken her speed became
Imperative under the law.
Commenting on this rule. Bouvier saws:
1.-The duty of slackening speed in order to
avoid collision had been frequently de-
clared by the maritime courts before the
adoption of these regulations Hagg
Adm 404, 10 How. 81, II id. Az, Is id. l0S-
but there was no intexihle rule requiring Il
steamer to slacken speed in all cases when
there was risk of collision, and the neglect
to do it was held to be a fault only in those
cases where its necessity was shown by the
proofs. This left the question open to be
determined by the courts in each particular
case, and perhaps upon vague and unrelia-
BILE estimates OF time and distance of bear
ings or upon conflicting and unsatisfactory
testimony; but the Legislature, in view OF
the great power and speed ot the steamers
now i'll general use, and the very disastrous
consequences of collision of such vessels
when running at their ordinary speed. has
wisely made the duty imperative.
Bourier Law Die, V. ?, p. 209 sec. II.
ilfe eommon carrier responsibility of tow
boats under the Jurisprudence of Louisiana.
does not, in my opinion. extend necessarily
to liability for damages occasioned by the
fault OF another steamer to Il vessel towed
by fhem when. as in this case, the witnesses
OF the injured vessel exculpate the towboat
from blame.
liz a case Of collision which occurred in
the same vicinity as the present one, he
tween an ascending steamer and a tow de-
scendiDg in the middle OF the river. the
Supreme Court Of the United States held
that "a tOwb boat is responsible for the safe
navigation of the tow so far as skill and
knowledge of the river are concerned: but
it is not responsible for the wrongs Of other
boats, which could not reasonably he
avoided" 20 Howard, ,jI.
It was mOonless, hrt clear starli ght
night. The tow had her proper lights in
their places and burning, and was distinct
ly recognized as a tow by the pilot OF the
steamer when a great distance Oft. The
tow was ir her proper place, descending.
which was the middle OF the river and d,
distance of half mile on either side Of the
tow Icr the ascending steamer to have
passed.
The Obligations and duties resting upon
thOseS charged with the navigation of q
large and swift steamer approaching q tug
boat having vessels III tow, under such CIR
cumstaEces have been very recently ex-
planned ,and.e enforced by the Supreme Court
OF the United States in numerous cases.
Ia the case OF tie Syracuse. II was held
that " s. large steamer, without tows or
other mcumbrance. approaching near TO
smaller ones with JOws, under crcr,n
stances where collision is likely to occur, is
bound TO move with caution. She is mis-
tress Of her course and motions, and stands
in position Of advantage over the others.
These (the tows) have not fun power over
themselves Wallace. 672. See also the
Allegheny, 9 Wallace 524.
l consider that the testimony N this case
fully exculpates the towboat Jewett, as
we'll as the bark Mathilde, from blame, and,
on the contrary, it traces the cause of the
collision as above stated, solely to the reck
less, Indifferent and improper manner in
which the steamship Sherman was navi-
gated. The owners of the Sherman must,
therefore, be condemned IN sOhdO to pay the
damages claimed by the bark Mathilde;
there must be judgment in favor OF the tow
boat Tillie G. Jewett and owners, and the
demand in recOnVention Of the owners OF
the steamship Sherman must be rejected.
And Judgment is accordingly 50 rendered.
Fifth District Court-The Alleged Tam
pering With a Jury.
In the Fifth District Court, Judge Leau-
mont came up the motion for a new trial in
the suit Of P. Higgins vs. c. C. Haley. en-
tered by Messrs Hays & New, attorneys
fsr the plaintiff.
.1pon the calling of the case, General |
Hays read the reasons upon which the mo- !
tioE for a new trial were based, among !
which was charge that the jury had been |