Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1879-07-16
ALPENA WEEKLY ARGUS.
Wednesday, July l6, 1870.
Frank w. Gilchrist ct. al. vs.. the
Propeller Ballentlne and the Schoon-
70 err A. II. Moore.

er A. II. Moore.
In the United State DistriC
Court Judge Brown, July 9Th, d.
livered his opinion in the abov
ease. a brief account of the co
lision as it occurred May 9, 1875
will be Interesting. 1t took plac
at the Lime Kiln Crossing, tn
steam barge East Saginaw with tn
Lathrop and Light Guard in toy
being bound down loaded, and tb
steam barge Ballentine, light, ant
schooner A. b. Moore bound up
1t was conceded by both parties
to the suit that the day was clear
and the wind blowing heavily from
the westward. The case of the
Lathrop, which, because of the
collision, drifted ashore and sunk,
was 10 the effect that when within
$50 feet Of Clark's wharf, and so
near the Canada shore as to be in
danger Of running aground, the
Ballentine passed the East Saginaw
about $50 feet off, the Light Guard
about 100 feet off, and then struck
Lathrop upon her starboard side.
The Moore then came on and
struck the Lathrop full upon her
starboard bow, injuring her so that
she 6rifted ashore and sunk. There
was no misunderstanding whatever
concerning signals.
The case of the Ballentine was
that, although she was able to pass
the East Saginaw and Light Guard
at about the distance above given,
the Lathrop, which was steering
badly and carrying sail at the time
took sudden sheer to the star
board, and before she could recov-
er herself struck the Ballentine,
and from that shcered more to the
starboard, and struck the Moore, by
the last blow being cut down to
the waters edge.
The Lathrop claimed the Ballen-
tine to be in fault principally for
crowding down tow so near the
Canadian shore. The Ballentine
claimed the Lathrop was in fault
for carrying sail in such a wind,
she being the rear vessel Of the
tow, therefore causing her to sheer.
The following is Judge Browns
opinion:
The collision took place in broad
daylight, and there is undoubtedly
fault on one or both sides. The
case was argued by counsel upon
the theory that the question of
fault depended mainly upon the
locality of the collision, the Lathrop
claiming that it took place near
the Canada shore, and within about .
$50 feet of Clark's dock, so-called
the Ballentine averring, with equal
earnestness, that it took place con-
siderably above this dock, and
about | 800 feet further TO the west
ward.
1t seems to me there can be but y
little doubt that the steering of the :
Lathrop contributed to this COLI :
sion. Though this steering bust ::
Dess is denied by her crew and by
'ther witnesses upon the down tow, :,
t is established to my satisfaction, :.
not only by the direct testimony of
the men Of the Ballentine and the :.
Moore, but by that of the Belcours, ;:
he admissions of Harrington and =,
~ the intrinsic probabilities of the :.
ase. She was the rear vessel of
he tow and was carrying her fore =
nd mailsail in strong current, :.
md with heavy wind blowing !,
'ver her starboard quarter add to ::
his the fact that, if she was not a -
lad steering vessel, she was not
very good one, and we find that
very condition favorable to her
herring existed. l am satisfied
'om the testimony of the experts
rat carrying sail under such cir ~ =.
is bad seamanship. an
he nature Of her collision by
18th the Ballentine strongly con-
rms this theory of the case. The tai
athrop was hit on the starboard M M
uarter, between the rail and the
alter line. This injury could not W,
ave been received from the
Iuff of the Ballentine 8 bow. as IS
er crew declare, since the propel- .
r was running light, standing
gh out of the water, and the pro-
elton of her bow was such that Co.
she had struck the Lathrop
charged, she would have struck