The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-11-03
supreme COurt.
II NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. JUDD, c. ].
TUESDAY. November %.


TUESDAY, November %.
Pacific Navigation Company vs.. ;. {.
Allen. Further hearing Of an action to
recover $25, 800 for the loss OF the
steamer james l. DowSett. Hon.
Paul Neumann, Mr. l.. y. Thurs
ton and Massrs Whiting * Creighton
for the libelaats; Mr.. :. B. Dole and
Messrs. Kinney 8, Peterson and Mr.. k.
F. Bickerton for the respondent.
Mr.. Kinney cited two cases Of collision
at sea, one Of which went to show that
wrong manguvre on the part OF sailing
vessel at the last moment did not ab-
solve the steamer from responsibility. 1t
was held to be the latter's duty To keep
clear. The other was a collision between
two steamers, one of which had mani
testify brought the other into dangerous
position, while a wrong man9uvre had
subsequently been executed by the
other. In this case damages were
ordered to be divided.
Mr.. Neumann said it was at first in
tended that the arguments should be al
ternate. In the absence OF Mr.. Thurs
ton it would therefore devolve upon him
self to make two arguments. That he
ound impracticable, and proposed to
state to Mr. Dole the points Of his argu-
ment, so that Mr. Dole could argue first.
Mr.. Dole agreed.
Mr.. Neumann said he claimed judg-
ment by reason of the want OF lights on
the schooner, which he proposed to
prove. He also claimed that if there
were any lamps they were not in accord
ance with the statute, and they were not
burning at the time Of the collision; that
the collision was caused by ignorance or
want of reasonable skill on the part OF
Captain Staples and that therefore Ii
these points be established it is entirely
the fault of the schooner. The learned
counsel went on to PROFOUND the points
of law Which he maintained.
Mr.. Dole held the main point to be
the question of lights on the schooner.
He held that the lights were in THEN
proper place and were burning at the
time OF the collision. He went on tC
argue that the action OF Captain Staples
at the critical moment was justifiable
and that it was useless to try to rebui
that by the evidence of a thousand ex
perts who were not on the spot. He
maintained that the evidence showed
an exceptionally high state of discipline
| prevailed on board the Moi Wahine
| ald that it was therefore exceedingly
! improbable in view of that fact that the
Captain would be guilty of bad seaman
ship at this particular juncture. He ex
! planned the alleged presence Of a greer
light on the wrong side of the schoone
! bv her having tackled, without those Oh
board the Dowsett being aware OF 1t
The trifiing discrepancies in the evi
dence for the respondent went to SHOW
there had been no collision, and wer
due to the excitement at the time. liz
traversed at considerable length tn
points raised by Mr.. Neumann and CAV
detailed argument as to the position
the two vessels must have occupied
claiming that the accident was entirel
due to a detective lookout on the Dow
sett, whose duty it was to keep clear.
Mr.. Neumann then spoke for betweel
two or three hours, exhaustively cover
ing the ground he had previously men
toned, and asserting that in his Opinio
the whole of the witnesses on board tn
schooner, with the exception of Friday
were unreliable.
The Court rose shortly before O'Clock
Judgment being reserved.