The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-09-29

out In the most effective manner the provisions OF
tins ste ana snch regulation" wheh s force Of
law" This provision was re-cnacsment Oh IKE
provision found section % Of the act OF February 20
1871 (lG U. \. Sat. at Large 4a9l | find u impos-
sioc 10 holt that the regulation respecting the IN
dicaton of the tack Is necessary or even an appro-
found In the title in questionable So 1t Is urged
that the clause referred 70 gives the Board power 10
make any regulation which tends 10 provcn. W" os
title SO are indeed, many Of them provisions 10 pre-
such loss oil fe But they are specific provisions
In regard 10 various matters None OF them relate 10
fog signals, TO the navigation Of steamer or sailing
vessel In fog, or 10 the manGuvrng OF steamer WIN
reference sailing vessel Therefore cannot hold
that the regulation respecting the indication Of the
schooncrs tack had the force OF statutory law as rc-
spccted either tho schooner or ihe steamer u' we
evidence Is clear that, tho language OF tho
sea, the steamer had the right 10 understand
ono blast OF fog horn IS indicating sailing
dencc the part Of The steamer and the absence OF
testimony the paFt OF the schooner, 10 the cncct
those on the schooner 10 indicate the saboard tack
II must be held that the schooner know that single
blast would indicate 70 tho steamer that the blast came
from a sailing vessel ON hor siarboard TACK The
had very shortly before, been on hor star
board tack. On that tack the ono blast was
proper. Whom she cainc on her port tack snc con-
tinued her ono blast Tho steamer heard that one
blast little on her port bow, not ovor hall point
With tho Roadway she had she ported her helm This
threw her head TO sarboard and tho evidence she
changed by compass, before tho collision point and
quarter from east by north ono quarter 10 east
by south. Her that the log horn was on
sailing vessel which on The sarboard tack and had
already got the port bow OF the steamer, and was
moving away from the course OF the steamer There
fore mort ng would insure tho passing OF the steamer
under tho stern ol such vessel. But the schooner
the port tack and was moving toward the iine
Of the steamers course. As It was although tho
steamer. by porting, changed point and quarter,
she struck the schooner At point only hteen icct
from the schoonor's stern. II tho schooner had by
two blasts her fog indicated that she was on
tho port tack II apparent that the steamer hear
ing the sound only half u point on her port bow,
would not have ported and that II she had kept her
course or much more, she bad starboarded 10 the
extent to which she ported sne would have
under tho OF tho schooner without strk
ing her, the blow would have been sliding and
CHANGING one, infcting less injury on the schooner
IN fault. DO md that any OF the othcr iaults
alleged against tho schooner arc established. IL io
that regards the suit brought by tho owners OF
the the damages Tor the loss OF the schooner
must be apportoned between the schooner ahd IN"
steamer The decision IN tho Atlas Is Otto JIG, re-
quircs that The SUIT by tho owners OF the cargo,
there should be docrec against the steamer Tor the
full OF the damages sustained by the loss OF
the cargo In each thero must BIO reference 10
MIR. Horace Bernard appeared for The schooner and
cargo, and MossrR Bcebc. Wilcox Hobbs Tor the
steamer.
DAMAGES FOR CHANGE OF GRADE.
An important decision In tho case of awarding dam
ages on account Of OF srade given yester
day by Judge wcstbrook. James Murtaugh. in 1857,
purchased SIX lots IN 10lst street, between Ninth and
Tenth In 1853 tho city had fixed grade Tor
1Olst street which Park Commissioners changed in
1868 In 1871 Murtaugh built several houses these
lots In 1874 tho city graded the street up TO the new
grade established by the Central Park Commissioners
Murtaugh then pctitoncd the assessors Tor damages
TO be allowed the damage 10 his houses by The
regarding OF the street. Tho ASSESSORS, supposing
these erected upon the street before the
new grade was established IN 1868, allowed urtaugh
$500. A number OF properly owners on the street
objected to this award. Murtaugh having
built upon tho first grade after tho last
grade had been established Tho assessors
then struck out the award 10 Murtaugh. Mr.. James
T. Deering then applied, on Murtaughs behalf to the
Supreme Court for mandamus to compel the assess
ors to reinstatc this award their list and directing
Board OF Revision 10 confirm II. The Corporation
Counsel made the point that Murtaugh was not enti
tied to any compensation under tho circumstances.
Mr.. DccrIng commended thut thorc was no statutory
provision allowing tho assessors to change their list,
whether the award was right or wrong. judge West
brook held, aud that when tho assessors have nd
v.rt,sed their list complete they are uncus onicio
then their duty to transmit their list TO the Board
Of Revision for confirmation. He therefore granted
the writ OF manGamus rho gist OF the case appears
very clearly to be that ASSESSORS although maDiesy
having made mistake in their list OF awards, cannot