The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-25
THE C0U RTS.
PilOtagc Fees Important Decision in Suits
Brought by Sandy Hook Pilots
A FEMALE PRoTEUs Inv COURT.
Important Decision in the Lexington
Avenue Extension Case.
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.
Suits Brought by sandy Hook Pilots
Important Decision OF the Court OF
Common Pleas General Term

Suits Brought by sandy Hook Pilots--
Important Decision OF the Cours OF
Common Pleas General Term.
In the General Term OF the Court OF Common
Pleas, before Chief Justice DAILY and Judges Robin
son, Van Brunt and Larremore. decisions have Just
been rendered on appeal, IN five suits brought by
sandy Hook pilots to recover pilotage fees in
which important questions IN relation to the pilot
laws are passed upon. Daniel Gillespie sued P.
Zittlosen consgnee Of the brig sarah E. Kennedy.
IN the First District Court before Judge QUINN for
his fees He had offered mis- services az pilot to the
brig at such distance from Sandy Hook as entitled
him TO Ion shore" piotage, and he was the first
pilot ofrering. the master replied that he might
come aboard to pilot the vessel. but the master
would not pay on shore pilotage, whereupon Gil.
lespie declined to go aboard. The vessel subse-
qnentiy took licensed pilot who was paid for his
services. Judge Quinn gave judgment for the
piainur, holding thar he being the first pilot
offering mad earned his fees when his services
were rendered. Judge Robinson, in delivering
the opinion OF the Common Pleas afnrming the
judgment, says that the exigencies OF commerce
require that provisions OF law should be made for
the employment or persons OF competent skill and
ability known as pilots, TO take charge OF vessels
bound to and from the ports or the haroors, who
shall be at all times in readiness to render them
aid and assistance. The faithful performance OF
such duties il oneraus and responsible, requir-
Ing great skill and an intimate acquaintance with
all the nrcacies and perils Oh the harbor, ana In
cessant exposure 10 all the perls or so hazardous
calling Tue maintenance OF such system for
the larger ports also requires regulations giving
them efficiency and permanency. 1t Is the policy
OF the law to afford encouragement TO such class
land ana venturin9 ana hazarding their persons
ana property 70 the perils Of the sea
n remas sns9 BY O.
The law, to promote vigilance, awards the right OF
piiotage 70 the pilot who is ready and first offers
struction OF the statutes, should 60 TO the pilot
FIRST speaking or offering his services as pilot to
posed, but the right to recover conferred. was
remedial, and grew out OF the considerations he
had stated, and presented q case where the COM
pensatlon was adJudged to be earned when the
services were rendered for performance The law |
properly qualified pilots, the master oil the vessel /
was not justified In caprciously refusing the SER
vices OF the one first offering The statute on the
subject was IN harmony with the rule OF the COM
mon law.
In the case OF John DoIlo against NJ. T. Wright,
there was no refusal OF the services OF the pilot.
He was taken on board, and some the afterward
the Captain asked and was informed that the YES
sci was about slxtythree miles south southeast OF
Sandy Hook. IL being fair night the captain IN
yted the pilot TO turn In or go 70 bed until the
IN siaSt at Twelve N rse morning. unnn
the pilot went on deck. He did not agree to &C.
ceps IN shore nllotage Snt It was Claimed that by
Judge Quinn gave judgment In his favor and Judge
Robinson, IN affirming IT, says:-"There was no con-
rradicton that the pilot was requested to turn
m or that in 80 doing he was, under the
circumstances, guilty oil any neglect OF duty
and the pllotage Zee for Oh shore. al
lowed by statute, was earned by tender
and readiness TO perform the duties" In the case
OF Howard Van Pelt against william q. Durham
there was an Oner OF services on or shore ground,
which services were refused, and the Judgment for
The plaintiff was afnrmed In that case an under
Taking was offered for the removal or the action to
the Common Pleas, but Judge Quinn held IL to be
insufficient, because executed only by sure ties the
defendant not joining. This was held TO have been
proper decision. The cases OF Mariga against
Doe, and Berry against Doe, involved similar uues-
tions and the judgments for the plsinuns we're
AFFIRMED,