The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-11-09

y r.lr-Ea- .-FF -f1+
AT .-E ve--. aer.9.r -
the Supreme Caur-- ID admiralty. -l-=
Honor gHfes G- .1aE =aataet up
the evidence and q .a-al I'D ---l-a- -u
the ease Vi tae Pacific Navigation Com
pzuv ~. g. G.. allen, il WHICH II "@=
sought 70 recover damages foI tie los7 q .
the steamer James J. Dowsett, owned y
the llbeIautg, afceT collision with the
schooner Mo- Wab-ne. toe properly Of .
the respondent. After = comprenel-
sIve statement q the facts, His Honor
proceeded 70 inquire Why the schooner
xas not seen By the watch On the
steamer until the Two were IL close
proximity. The defense gwen BY the
CAPTAIN Of the steamer was that the
schooner had no lights. Witnesses i9I
the Hbelants stated that they q" INC
pinnacle light and the lights IRON li-7
c,lins. Afterwards, II was stated
green light was seen on the port SIDE d
the schooDer- On the other hand, Al
,ba crew Of the MOI Wabiue say unhesl-
.s+inglv that the lights were ht On the
night Of the collision The captain ana
MI testify that they saw the glimmer
If the lights shining inwards- f1l-
Honor found that the statutory pro
visions a. 70 the lights were complied
With II was 70 the credit u the "atch
m the Moi Wafine that they saw the
Dowsett's lights Their position was
rsore favorable one for observation thaH
that of the UJwsett's watch. The con
elnsion -vas that the Dow7eti men
must hare looked only at time when
Il was not possible for them 70 see ihe
scbooDer's lights They must have been
attending n other matters. There was
no imputation Of perjury OF dish oiles'l
~ the witnesses on the DOwsett, who no
5o,b+ did not see the schooner until
cloae uDon her. There was only one
1o,l,-out on the DUwsett, and he had
st,od watch from 70 Y on the previous
night. besides having worked all ia!
discbarging cargo This man could no
h considered a. answering the require
r,en+s He should have been the Des
and freshest sailor on the ship. He ha'
evidently become wearied by couJlnuon
d,,tv and was therefore unfit 10 b
nIaeed on watch. The only solution c
the green light said TO have been see
on the port side Of the schooner IL tina
she had zone about for Honolulu, an
thus her green light, though IN II
proper position, would be visible III
testimony Of the witness who said b
saw a man carrying a light was u
worthy Of belief. II having been q
eided that the schOoner's lights were
order the decision became simple II
schooner was not seen by the men {
the Dowsett until a collision was newt
bic. The Dcwsett was therefore u
cause Of the collision. The Law provid
that a steamer must keep out Of the ~
Of a sailing vessel Il was "a
that the schooner pat her he
M. experts testified that they Won
have p1t il down II was also strCn:
urged that the schooner should not ha
rnsrgsd her course and that this cau-
the collision. The ruling On this po
and that II in an emergency an order
given which should not have been gl'
the law regards II as an error ana JIG
fault. The steamer was 10 blame
suffering the peril to occur, and a-tros
If is the duty Of a sailing vessel 70 k'
on her course, she is not bound to Dc
alter a collision has become inevitai
Counsel for the respondent complain
that nothing was done by Captain
dot u save the steamer, and that lie
not even examine the injury she
sustained until he was IN the boat '
the intention Of abandoning her.
could safely have stayed by until
sank. The respondent was allo
500 80 for expenses. with interest
costs. A decision was given dismiss
the libel and sustaining the cross
fled by the respondent.