Wilmington journal., 1874-07-03
THE PILOT LAVVS-INaPoEsg' NJ
DECISION.


Common Pleas, of New York, before
Chief Justice DAILY and Judges Robin
son, Van Brunt and Larremore, decis-
ions have just, been rendered on appeals
in several suits brought 10y Sandy
Hook pilots to recover pilotage fees,
in which important questions in rela-
ton to the pilot laws are passed on,
and which will be read with particular
interest by pilots generally.
The facts in the case are these
Daniel Gillespie sued p. Zittlosen,
consignee of the brig Sarah Z. kenne-
dy, in the First District Court, before
Judge Quinn, for his fees. He had
offered his services as pilot to the
brig at such distance from Sandy, Hook
as entitled him to ''otf shore" pilotage,
and he was the first pilot offering
The master replied that he might come
aboard to pilot the vessel, but he
would not pay for off shore pilotage
whereupon Gillespie declined to go
aboard. The vessel subsequently took
licensed pilot, who was paid for his
services. Judge Quinn gave judg-
ment for the plaintiff, holding that he
being the first pilot offering, had earn
ed his fees when his services were ten
| dered. Judge Robinson, in deliver
ing the opinion of the Common Pleas
affirming the Judgment, says that the
| exigencies of commerce require that
provisions of law shonld be made
| for the employment of persons
of competent skill and ability,
known as pilots, to take charge of
| vessels bound to and from the ports
| or the harbors, who shall be at all
| times in readiness to render them aid
and assistance. The faithful perform
ance of such duties is onerous and res
ponsible, requiring great skill and an
intimate acquaintance with all the in
tricacies and perils of the harbor, and
lncessant exposure to all the perils of
so hazardous a calling. The main
tenance of such a system for the lar
ger ports also requires regulations
giving them efficiency and permanent
cy. 1t is the policy of the law to af-
ford encouragement to such a class of
| persons to engage in cruising at dis
tance from land and venturing and
hazarding their persons and property
to the perils of the sea, by enslring
them some adequate and certain re-
ward therefor by way of pilotage. The
law to promote vigilance, awards the
right Of pilotage to the pilot who is
ready and first offers to perform the
services. Such fee, by fair construc-
tion of the statutes, should go to the
| pilot first speaking or offering his SER
vices as pilot to such vessel. This was
in no sense penalty imposed, but the
right to recover conferred, was rem
| edlal, and grew out of the consider
ations he had stated, and presented
case where the compensation
was adjudged to be earned when the
services were rendered for perform
ance. The law having, by examina-
ton and license, provided properly
qualified pilots, the master of the YES
sci was not justified in capriciously re-
fusing the services of the one first
offering. The statute on the subject
was in harmony with the rule of the
common law.
In the case of John Dollo against
NJ. L. Wright, there was no refusal of
the services of the pilot. He was
taken on board, and some time after
ward the Captain asked and was in
formed that the vessel was about sixty
three miles south southeast of Sandy
Hook. 1t being fair night, the Cap
taln invited the pilot to turn in, or
go to bed until the Highlands were in
sight. This he did. They came in
sight at half-past twelve in the morn
ing, when the pilot went on deck. He
did not agree to accept in shore pilot
age, but it was claimed that by turn
ing i'm he forfeited the 'soff shore"
pilotage. Judge Quinn gave judg-
meIt in his favor, and Judge Robin
son, in affirming it, says: 'There
was no contradiction that the pilot was
requested to turn tn or that in SO
doing he was, under the circumstances.
guilty of any neglect of duty, and the
pilotage fee for off shore, allowed by
statute, was earned by tender and
readiness to perform the duties.''