Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1876-02-24
The Tice Admiralty Case.
DECISION OF JUDGE BRADFORD-HE AWARDS "
TO THE LIBgLLANfs-rrs Distribution.

DECISION OF JUDGE pRADToRp-HE AWARDS 800
TO THE LIBgLLANrs-rrs DISTRIBUTION.
In the U. 8. Court, on Friday Judge Brad
ford delivered his opinion in the admiralty case
Of Tice ct al against the Leoi Harris. A state
ment Of the facts will help to All understanding
Of the opinion Of the Court.
About =. m. on June 3Oth, 1875, the schooner
Gen. Leui Harris, q coaAting vessel owned by
Kont oountians, was struck by sudden squall
when three miles Of Synepuxent Beach, bound
for Stockton, Md, from New York, with cargo
of general merchandise. In . crippled oondl-
ton, with the foremast wrung out Of the step
ping aud slight damage to the rigging, the crew,
three men and boy, dropped anchor and made
tss spd Es%s9lp9 q e9sFS 5a5 t1a SsE hpS Js2
City ~ right the mast. Meanwhile the surf
had increased until it became necessary to
return In . surf boat During this
delay the William Tice, OF Bristol, Pa, came
along, hove up the anchor Of the disabled yes-
sci and towed her away, heading. for the Break
water and thence to New Castle, whore Capt.
Tioe libeled her for salvage, claiming 900. 1t
was brought out in the evidence that the crew
| Of the Harris followed as long ~ practicable,
signaling the lice, but receiving no response,
and seeing the distance WAS increasing between
them returned to Ocean City. The owners Of
Harris objected to the charge made by Tice and
| left the matter to Court
The libellAnts alleged that the Harris, when
picked up by the 1scr. was exposed to marine
peril and that in the condition she then WAS, had
not assistance been rendered. the swayng Of
| the foot Of the mast would have chafed through
| the bottom of the vessel and sunk her, but they
admitted that nothing WAS done to materially
| lessen the peril until noon Of the next day.
| the rate Of miles per hour, but were forced to
| admit that it was with difficulty they hove up
| the anchor of the Harris.
| The respondents denied the marine peril. al
leging that the vessel WAS safely anchored in .
| we'll known and popular Anchoring ground, and
in sight Of and easy distance Of land that the
absence was only temporary and the clrcum'
stances under which the Harris WAS picked up
by the Tice were not such as would warrant the
seizure aud removal Of the vessel. They fur
ther alleged that the conduct OF the crew OF tbs
Toe VAS such as, uLder the laws Of admiralty
would work forfeiture Of all claim for meri
torious service, having appropriated to thei
own use part OF the cargo, tue clothing ant
other personal property Of the disabled vessel
Judge Bradford declined to strike out th'
amended answer on the proof Of any facts tend
ing 70 show conspiracy, spoliAtion, or othel
misconduct by the Tfce crew and ~ he did no
consider that proof sufficient to convict the cre'
Of the conspiracy, he held the declarations o
sufficient to forfeit his share Of any allowance
He considered fully and clearly the natC r
of the peril to which the Harris WAS exposed
the degree of merit OF service by the Tic
crew, and the rules OF law regulating salvag
awards. He allowed $700., that amount bein
made up OF two elements, to wit: S400. for los
Of time, and $500. for services in rescuing tn
Harris from the peril.
The amount awarded was distributed as fol
lows: one-third to owners OF Tice, 1898 80; one
third Of the remainder to Capt Tice, $l55 81
one-nfth of the remainder to each OF the crew
$2l8 80; the share Of Clark forfeited to the own
ers OF the Harris, e6222
Mayor Whiteley and Jno. H. Rodney, Esq
represented the libelants, and Mcssrs. Hsrrine
ton and Honecker the respondents.