Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-07-13
NOT THE TUGS FAULT
----~------~-
CrRcvrr coUR'cs or APPEALS ne
CIpEs THE EvICH CASE.
HOW TIE LAD WAS DROWNED.
Judge simonton, in Oycrruling the
pccision Of Judge Hughes, Reviews
,hs Evidence TO show That the
Glendale was Not Responsible.

The opinion OF the judges OF the Oni'eo
States Circuit Court OF Appeals Tor 'hls
district in the case Of Philip b. Evich'
administrator OF Joseph Evich, deceased
against the steam tug Glendale ana It's
owners. the Freeman Brothers. when, as
announced I'm the Dispatch Of Sunday
has reversed the decree Of Judge Hughes
rendered In the. United States DistricI
Court. was received here yesterday. The
opinion was handed down in Baltimore
and was written by Judge Simonton ana
concurred in by Judges Con- and Draw
ley. The case was argued in kichhoho
last May.
FACTS IN THE CASE.
The facts of the case are stated as fol-
lows:
"The Glendale IS small tug. d feet
long. SS-i feet beam, propelled by steam
and engaged in towing in and about 'ne
James river. The infestate Of the ioei-
liant was with his father, the hbehant
and two other men, fishing with se'hc
I'm the james river between Richmond anu
Manchester, on the afternoon ana eve
ming of the 9TH OF June, 1896. On that
evening the Glendale, proceeding down
the river. came upon the small boat III
which these persons had been fshing'
when She came close to the boat bVlch'
the llbellant, caught the rail OF the tug
and Jumped out Of his boat into the tug
<,ne Of the men. Coleman. took the Doy'
Toe Evcb by the hand and reached out
and got on the tug. Somehow his grasp
on tho how was loosened, so that the boy
cot away from hinl-probaby was sucked
nnder the tug and was drowned. he was
about ~ wears old The small boat hao
no light. 1t was about IL feet lone'
about feet wide I'm the centre, It's great
est beam. pointed at the bow. with
souare stern. and a fiat bottom
NO EVIDENCE or MALACE.
The above facts, the opinion states,
are undisputed, but the question in the
case As who was in fault for the SAD
accident? '"rhe testimony is voluminous'
the number OF witnesses out OF ali pro-
portion. and the evidence contradictory
10 a degree. =,
The opinion then reviews at length all
the testimony submitted, and then states
that no evidence whatever is on record
tending TO show malice or bad feehhs
on the part of the tug-owners toward
the llbellant, and continues There Is
conflict of evidence as to the distance at
which objects could be seen that nisht.
The accident occurred between and
oclock on q night in June. The electric
lights on the banks Of the river were
lit The master of the tug and other
witnesses say that these lights made IL
difficult to see on the river and that 1t
was dark. The preponderance OF the
evidence is that the collision occurred
in md-channel
"The narration of the witnesses for
libelIant is not credible" says the opin-
ion. "unless the master OF the tug was
in n state Of beastly intoXication. They
saw that the tug steered wildly. always
toward them, in whichever direction
they moved, with the apparent inten-
ton OF running them down. And no
motive whatever is shown for this. on
the other hand we find other witnesses
entirely dlsinterested, who swear that
he was perfectly sober. We also ma
that at this very time he went about
his business as towmaster, gave a CO.
herent. intelligent instruction TO the sand
barge. went and lowed the Reese,
and then finished his contract with the
sand-harge to the satisfaction of both.
That he had all his lights up; that he
had a lookout forward, and as soon as
he had notice Of the danger OF COLI
sion, took prompt and successful pre-
caution II is absurd to say that he
co,lided with the small boat at full
speed. If he had done so, he must
have cut her in two. or have run her
down. There is great conflict of evil
dence on the point whether the boat
was hurt at ALL One thing is certain
she was able TO carry three grown men
ashore after the accident and that two
Of these got back in her from choice.
EVIDENTLY LOST THEIR HEADS.
evidently the men in the small boat
lost their heads, steered wildly; instead
of keeping on the Chesterfield side, where
they were, they undertook to cross the
river after they saw the tug coming,
when she was 800 yards or $50 yards away.
Having no light on her. n small boat low
in the water. it was not surprising that
she was not seen until the tug was very
near. and when she was seen the tug con-
trolled her movements so completely That
two men only on the small boat could
catch hold of her rail and get on board.
"This small boat had no light, although
II was long after sunset. Section 4233,
Revised Statutes OF the United states,
light whilst navigating a river. This
being so, il was incumbent on libellant
10 show that the absence of a light could
not have contributed TO the disaster. (Bel-
den VS.. Chase, $50 u. S., ga. Where fault
on the part of one vessel is established
by uncontradicted testimony, and such
fault I'm itself Is sufficient to account for
the disaster 1t Is not enough for such YES
gel 10 raise doubt with regard 10 the
management of the other vessel.
considering this mass Of testimony
and reconciling, as far as possible, the
contradiction in IT. having due regard 10
the preponderance of evidence when II Is
irreconcilable. we think that the District
Court erred In its conclusion"
OTHER DECISIONS.
other decisions were handed down as
follows:
No. 2l2-Before Judges Simonton and
Huehes-Thomas C. Chappell. plaintiff in
error. against United States, defendant
I'm error. In error TO District Court oi
United States for District of Maryland
The court affirmed the decision OF the
District Court
No 2i9-Neil Mcneil. doing business un-
der title of Mcneil Brothers, plaintiff IN
error. against Charles Nj. Armstrong, de-
PENDANT i'm error In error TO the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Dis
trIct of Maryland. The court found nc
error and affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court.
lFnIIlAan "For fifteen years
- far q m y