The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-26
DONE IN THE COURTS.
Decision by Judge Hanford in
an Admiralty Case.
IN A LoNesHoREMAN's LIBEL.
Judge Knowles, OF Montana, to SIT for
Judge Hanford September 16-
Superior Court Notes.

Judge Hanfoyd rendered an important
decision in the United States district court
IN the case of the libel of Will
lam Hamilton VS.. the steamship Walla
Waiia, which fixes q precedent tor
practice in an interesting question
arising from the transition of Wash
ington from territorial to state govern
menf. In this case the plaintiff brought
hoei against the steamship for $4,000 dam
ages for personal injuries. He was long
shoreman. and while discharging the ships
cargo at Port Townsend in February.
1859. barrel of oil rolled upon his hand,
crushing 1t so as to necessitate
me amputation of three fingers
The plaintiff obtained q Judgment
for 5000 in the district court of the Third
Judicial district of Washington territory,
from which decision an appeal was taken
oy the claimant, the Oregon Improvement
company. to the supreme court of the ter
rtory. While the appeal was pending the
territory was admitted to the Union. The
case came before the court yesterday on q
motion OF the hbelIant for an execution,
on the assumption that the appeal had
been abandoned, as the transcript had not
been filed in the higher court The court
overruled the motion. Following is the
text OF the opinion of the court:
United States District court. northern division.
district of Washington. William Hamilton
vs. Steamship Wslla walla, Oregon Improve
ment Company claimant. Opinion filed
August 26th, 1890. Syllabus bv the court
SUCCESSOR OF TERRITORIAL coURT-ADMIRALrY-
APPEAL-An admiralty cause having been ap-
peeed to the supre ne court of Washington
frrx~ h~a<x <r&e A..
to the admission OF the state into the Union
must necessarily be transferred from the ter
ritorial district court OF original jurisdiction,
which rendered the decree, to this court
which is q, TO all admiralty causes successor
to the territorial court of original
jurisdiction. And transcript record should
properly nave been sent from this court to the
circuit court for this district before the first
day of its first term Faiinre of the appellant
TO canse the transcript 70 be sent up aud have
me cause docketed in the circuit court before
the beginning of the term is not, however,
such laches as 10 be deemed an abandonment
OF the appeal there havidg been heretofore no
opportunity for trial OF the cause in the cir
cult court and no actual del az.
ExEcUTioS-The court will deny q motion for
leave 10 issue an execution made after an APP
peal taken. and a considerable delay in csus-
ing Transcript OF the record to be sent up;
ana based on an ASSUMPTION that the appeal
mas been abandoned, when it appears that a
hhearing OF the cause in the sppellate court
the part of the appellant
In this case a decree in favor of the libellaut
was rendered by the district court OF the Third
judicial district of the territory OF Washington.
from which an appeal was taken to the supreme
court OF the territory, and everything necessary
to perfect said appeal was done before the re-
urement OF the territorial courts consequent
upon the organization of the state government,
except to certify and transmit the record to the
supreme court and docket the case therein
As understand the different statutory pro-
visions affecting the subject. this court is the
successor of the territorial court Of original
Jurisdiction as to ell admiralty causes pend
ing at the time the change froma territorial to
state government took place And all such cases
are TO be understood as having been by operation
of law transferred from such court of original
jurisdiction to this court. And this court, in
taking cognizance of them, regards them as il
everything done by its predecessor had been
done by this court, and its duty Is to do what
ever may be properly done 10 finish them. In
other words. this court takes such cases in the
condition in which the territorial district court
left them, and proceeds to do whatever remains
to be done to afford the PARTIES on either side
whatever relief they may be entitled to have,
and to end the litigation; therefore the case
came properly into this court and In due course
IL should have given effect to the appeal takeu
by certifying and transmitting the record 70 the
circuit court of this district VIII ich is as &c sach
cases the successor of-the territorial supreme
court. and the only court to which the cause
can be taken on appeal. The record should have
been sent up and the cause docke ed in the cir
cult court before the first day Of its
first term for the northern division of the dis.
trict. and consider IL the fault OF the proctor
for the appellant, rather than Of the clerk that
this was not done, for II is not claimed that the
clerk has ever refused or been unwilling to
make the transcript or docket the cause, and as
a matter of fact he has only delay ed for want OF
request to proceed. This neglect, however.
has not in fact delayed the hearing or decision
OF the case. for there has been no judge in at
tendance except the district Judge, who, as
judge OF the territorial court, gave the decision
appealed from, ana who Is therefore within the
spirit and reason of section GA of the Revised
Statutes, debarred from again deciding the case
Such being the facts and condition OF the case.
the hbelsnt now moves for leave to issue an ex-
ecution upon the decree. claiming that by
laches the appeal has been abandoned / hold.
however. that no actual intent to abandon the
appeal is shown. and that until an opportunity
TO have a review OF the case has been suffered to
pass. abandonment of the appeal canno, be le-
gally implied from lsches.
The first term of the circuit court has not vet
ended, and whether the appellant shall be
denied trial in the appellate court
as penalty for failure to have the case
doeketed before the beginning of the term is
a question for the court 70 decide No
rules of practice have as yet been adopted by
either the circuit court or this court and the
interruption Of the proceedings in the case Incl
dent TO the change OF government has created
confusion and uncertainty in the practice. In
view of ell the facts and circumstances proper
TO be considered, notwithstanding the hardship
to the libelant of having to wait so long for the
final decision of his case. could not but regard
a ruling, which would in effect cut off the right
OF appeal as tyrannical, and therefore deny the
motion.
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE FROM MONTANA.
Judge Hiram Knowles, of the United
States district court OF Montana will sit
for Judge G. Fl. Hanford in this city dur
ing a special term of the United States dis
trict court. converting September Is, for
the purpose of hearing cases in which
Judge Hanford is unqualified to sit The
large practice enjoyed by Judge Hanford
prior to his appointment as United States
district judge placed a large number of
cases on the calendar of the United States
district court in which he was attorney.
and therefore disqualified him to sit. rem
Gering il necessary TO hold this special
term. The court announces that all these
cases will be heard then or dismissed.
There will be no further opportunity
granted to those who fail to appear for
trial during this term.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.
Judge Liehtenberg. after brief vacation
OF week at the hop ranch. resumed his
seat on the bench OF the equity department
yesterday morning. Several matters came
before him, the most important being the
case OF James McGiIl, O. Deyoe and others.
the contractor and laborers arrested for
contempt of court. for continuing work on
the winehill building after being re strained
by the court They were given q hearing and