Wilmington daily commercial., 1874-12-05
Court Proceedings.

New CASTLE, Dec
Court lmet, this morning, OF the usual hour,
Judges wooten and Houston on the bench.
The case-of E. Jefferson us. Brady 400 action
for damages to the sloop Helen by collision with
the barge G. A. DorTJisld while being towed by
the tug Sodnotc, In the Chesapeake 4 Delaware
Canal, was continued. The whole OF the morn
ing session was occupied in taking testimony for
the defense. The intention of the defendants
s to show that they were guilty Of no negligence
or, that II they were, that there WAS contributory
negligence on the part OF the plaintiff, and hence
they could not recover. The defense closed at
p NJ, when the court took recess until 21s
o'clock.
nCourt re-assembled at the appointed hour
when Mr.. Whiteley then commenced his opening
argument. Turning to the court he addressed
them upon the Law question arising in the case.
He quoted Slery on Agency as authority for the
general proposition that II the master of ship
runs down another vessel negligently, the own
er OF the ship is liable for damages. lie then
announced and argued eiahoratety the following
propositions
/. Where ship towed is under the direction
and control Of tug, the tug is liable for COLI
sion.
2. That bsrges or tow IN canals are always un-
der the control and direction of the tug.
3. That il tug with tow approaching yes
sci towed by mules, stops her headway and puts
her tow into confusion and causes collision there
| by, the tug is responsible.
4. That il is the duty Of captain OF atuB hav-
ing tow in the canal, to see that each barge oil
his tow is steered, and il collision happens (two
barges not having been steered) by any one OF
| the unsteered barges colliding with aloop ol
vessel the tug is liable.
8. That il Captain Robinson put the Helen
ashore, when he saw the bargea yawing he did
all he was obliged to do, both under the rules OF
the canal and under the demands of prudence
and care, he having the right Of the channel, OF
1 vroy 40 Il1l n canal
| 6. That IL it If the custom or duty for mule
| tows TO tie up when they sec tug, with tow
approaching, and the captain Of the tul
sees that the mule tow has not done so, 1t is tho
duty of the captain Of the tug to stop before b,
gets to the vessel,
Z. That Captain Robinson did oil his duty re
quired when he threw off his line, steered hi
| vessel past the tug aud barges l and and theI
grounded her.
s. That Captain Robinson was under no obi
CATION TO tie, even if he saw the barges yawinl
at the distance the tow was on, provided he wa
in his right place that 1t was the tugs duty h
straighten up the barges, either by putting ol
speed or going to leeward, and thereby takn
the tug and its tow out of the Helen's way.
o. That where a vessel is at a wharf or agroun
in channel where she il lawfully, in case of
collision with or by tug or its tow the tug
responsible.
10. That the law requires that il vessels i
the way of tug or from other causes navigatiO
ia dangerous, the tug with ito tow s bound
proceed with great caution.
IL. That the law requires from necessity, in
canal where a tow is made up OF boats. .belongin
10 different owners and separately commanded
that the tug must have control of the tow
10. That the privilege or monopoly Of towing
as in the case of the defendants, makes the tn
liable. because the barges obliged to take th
/ defendants power or tow themselves. and thi
being so the tug is bound TO tow safely both
I the barges towed and to approaching vessels.
Mr.. Whitley at the conclusion Of his addre'
8 to the court turned to the jury and gave rapi
resume OF the evidence for the plaintiff, an
was followed by Henry Pepper, ESQ, who r.
viewed the evidence for the defense.
At p. IN. court adjourned until 10 a. Il
morrow. II. G. L.