The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-01-31

Judge Hanford yesterday issued twr
opinions In cases Of more than ordinary
importance, one OF which has been on tht
books o. the United States circuit cour'
Tor more than two years, entitled Jane.
Timmons vs.. McCabe & Hamilton. Ths
action was in admiralty and was for S, &C
damages a..egsG 10 have been suffered by
the plaintiff while engaged ia assisting 4
load vessel
In this opinion Judge Hanford takes oc.
CASTOR 10 make a feW remarks about "the
young gentleman" who represented the
plaintiff. The court says the attorney
favored hard b. leading questions 70 induce
MS witnesses 70 swear that chutes and a
turning board made wider and with higher
Fallings might have been used with greater
safety 10 the men, but from answers
elected he finds no reason 10 believe "tha,
the mechanical ingenuity OF the gentleman
Is OF any higher order than the ability as
lawyer which he has displayed in the
conduct OF this case" The opinion fol
lows.
~ MS is libel in personam. by James
IihMons against his employers 10 re-
cover damages for personal injury suf-
tSIeu ps MIN while slowing cargo in the
emp EAlsland. al West Seattle in the
year Issi The respondents as co-uart-
hers' are doing a general steyedOre bust
s Al the diferent ports on Puget
engaged IN loading the Ellisland with a
largo OF wheat under contract. The libel
4dht was one or the crew Of iongshoremen
employed to assist In slowing the cargo
his station was in the hold OF the ship
ana ms duty was 10 carry sacks from the
receiving table at the bottom OF the chute
ana place them as required. While so en-
gagged a sack OF wheat by reason OF not
being placed in the chute SO as 10 run
straight. fell out OF the chute down the
nIatchway and against T1mmons, infiict-
ing the injury complained Of
The Jurisdiction OF the court is dis
puted on the ground that the libeliant had
no contract relation TO the ship. aud the
subject matter OF the suit Is not maritime
IN character. This precise question was
recently considered by Judge Morrow in
the case OF Herman vs.. the Port Blakeley
Mil Company. % Fed. Rep. SIS and in his
opinion. after a careful review OF the
authorities, the learned judge upheld the
jurisdiction on the ground that the ad-
miralty courts in this country have juris-
dlction IN ali cases Of torts committed on
board OF vessels afioat on navigable
waters. on the authority of that decision
L oVerrule the objection in this case.
In the libel II is charged that the acct
dent was caused by negligence on the part
OF respondents in using for the purpose OF
conveying the sacks OF wheat to the hold
OF the ship defective and improperly con-
stfucted chutes, and in falling 10 have a
man stationed on deck to properly regu-
late the starting OF the sacks al the upper
endS OF the chutes. at the eoaming of the
match. and IL is specified that the chute
nom which the sack fell was improper
ana defective in this: that the bottom
board was not sufficiently wide for the
purpose. and there was no railing on the
sides thereof 10 prevent the sacks from
cropping over the side, and ii is further
specified that al the time of the injury
there was no person stationed on deck to
prevent the sacks from rushing down too
rapidly or 10 guide them in starting.
In determining the question OF negl-
il my fsaf \,
the evidence shows either one of two
things, viz:
''First-whether or not the chutes in
use al the time of the injury were in any
wise defective or improper.
Second-Whether or not the respond
ents were in fault In not having a suffi-
cient number of competent men on deck
and at the upper ends of the chutes lead
Ing to the hold OF the vessel TO regulate
the speed of the sacks and guide them in
starting.
LAS TO the first inquiry. ] must find that
there Is a total failure of proof TO sustain
the allegations OF thelbel. The testimony
OF all of the libellant's fellow laborers who
were called is witnesses, as well as the
evidence introduced on the part of the
respondents. proves that the chutes in use
were made OF good material and OF the
width, thickness and strength required
10 adapt them for use to the best advan-
tagc; they were dressed smooth and had
side ratings two inches thick and four
inches wide the upper edges OF the railing
being two inches above the surface Of the
bottom boards. In brief. the chuteS are
OF the kind in general and constant use
for the purpose OF transferring grain in
sacks where the same can he done by slid
Ing the same In chutes. The only testi
mOny offered TO prove that the Chutes
were defective or improper was given by
the 'libellant himself. Under pressure OF
leading questions from his attorney. he
made the statement that the chutes In use
on that day ought TO have been con-
demned, but on the cr0Ss-eXaminati0n he
denied having made such a sta tement in
his direct examination. The young gen
tleman who represented the libellant AS
his attorney in the taking of evidence be
fore the commissioner labored hard by
leading questions 10 induce his witnesses
TO swear that chutes and a turning board
made wider and with higher ratings
might have been used with greater safety
10 the men but from answers ELECTED |
can find no reason TO believe that the
mechanical ingenuity OF the gentleman IS
Of any higher order than the ability as a
lawyer which he has displayed IN the con-
duct Of this case. or that appliances for
loading vessels. constructed according to
hts theories would he at all better or safer
than such as have been devised hy prac-
u"N men. having experience OF many
years in the use thereof. I am Iced 10
make this observation by reason OF the
fact that the attorney. having obtained
from the court an order authorizing the
case to be prosecuted in forrna paUperis.
has abused the privilege by making the
same time imposing uDon the court the
burden OF having 10 examine a mass OF
matter entirely useless in the case. IN
search ~ find the little testimony that Is
material"
Judge Hauford then reviews some OF
the testimony spoken Of and continues.
The first two witnesses called for the
Ihellant gave no testimony favorable 20
his side. they We're working IN a differ
ent part OF the vessel whore they could
~r..r b
knowledge in regard 20 H. except that
they heard about IL after it happened.
Their testimony does not even tend 20
prove any fact eNrept admitted facts as
20 the lihcllants injury. which did not
require proof and Yet the testimony OF
these two witnesses. including their cross
EXAMINATIONS and re-cros=-examination
ami the objections and disputes Of conn
sch cover lo5 pages u typewriting. making
an expense for StauoEra piers fees alone
~ az least ga Il j. only fair 20 say.
tfF upon the lltisants, I bod the counsel
for tle respondents equally in fsult.
A ~ rae second inquiry. Z ind from
me evidence that on tho dsy Of the injury
on" ~ tEr crew named Butler thOr-
CUEAlE corr pettnt man was stationed NJ
the hatch tn position for doiug the
work u turning tae sacks as they came
hv tbs chute from The ~a9 o. ia srfn
furo fhe riEhf ana tef- eautes rpsupgti tive
". leading 70 the hold - The s1ip and 70
.re port and star6oar5 sides. respectively.
M Butter djd not 40 any t.ue leave hts
station. ana there IS m evidence tending
20 prove negligence IN ere performance OF
DTS tntV Another member % the crew
named M4gavoy was stationed on the up-
n-r a~-k rs the chute leading from tne
raj. or me shin 20 f1e hatch whose iu-v
q vas 80 stop -Ae sacks from coming TOO
-~. ana - s.sna. to the man in Charge
~ tee C1nrHEcr whenever lt was nesHs-
sa-y re change ~ speed. Mr Macavoy
gas 9rrH feE zen years a steam boat O. p