The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-01-18


peculiarly difficult and especially under the crcnm-
of this CASE that such calculation of ndg
we'll of eye sight that competent captains likely
distances under
similar those involved IN this when exercising proper
and prudence that the Captain command in this instance
competen and that he m>ed by appearances aud
through want OF proper care ON ms part
The defendant introduced number of expert witnesses
captains of long experience both elsewhere and about these
islands, and familiar with the and in question: several
of whom had commanded the steamer question One OF THESE
asked How far do You consider the miscacuaton
distance the danger of the navgatlon
danger peculiar to the sea- this question objection made
ground that allow the witness would be
allow him usurp the functions of the This objection
been based either the theory that the witness
called upon whether mcacuaton OF distance at
peril danger of the sea- under all circumstances as
of law else the theory that the witness was asked
whether the micacuaton question under the particular
circumstances of this dangerof the sea- as to con
good defense 1t evident from the explanation made
the time by counsel who asked the question we'll by the
subsequent exminaton of the witness that the question
asked for either of these purposes he words danger OF the
sea- used in technical in the question The
object show that difficulty of calculating distance
general and matter of fact much greater than upon
land This point upon which those who have had
peence upon the peculiarly competent to Judge The
object show that in the opinion of the witness the loss
occurred from of the excepted in the shipping receipt
but show certain fact within the witness knowledge
expert which, would tend show with other facts that the loss
did through the negligence of the Captain might
have occurred without negligence his part The question:
understood evidently by the and must have
been by the jury within the class of questions that be
asked of expert witnesses.
Another question asked the this SIS the
danger miscacuatng distance such point this kokok
point under the in the supposed such
have msed mariners of undsputed skill and experienced!
Objection made this question the ground that
In the first place counsel contends that 1t vague
in the of the words under the circumstances of the sup
posed case He contends that hypothetical instances had
been mentioned and that it impossible say which
and which We find that only hypothetical
had been put and that had been stated this wit
ness shortly before the question was put him.
To I
misunderstanding this point 1t is conended, secondly that
the words such have msed mariners of undispued skill
and experience in that they may uch might
have msled such coud have mised The question
evidently intended and understood in the former That is
the natural Of these constructions and in meeting the OBJ
lection explained that the question of the character
of the following question which had already been asked without
objection namely Is the fact that captain has mis- udged
his distance from land necessarily proof neggence
l. is further contended that construed in this the question
improper the ground that allow it would be to allow
the witness up the functions of the jury The trial judge
sustained all objections questions which called for opinion
upon the conflicting evidence in the upon the general
merits OF the He allowed the witness in question
whether III his opinion, expert upon certain facts stated
hypothecalv and which there evidence support the
difficulty in calculating distance from the land such that
competent captain exercising proper might have been de
ceved In Hc4rtbu. a. Sfnrs q Wend 100 cited bv plain
tf counsel the of the steamboat had mistaken light
upon stranded vessel for Light usually exhibited by the
keeper of beacon light consequence whereof the steamboat
stranded and the goods etsoned Evidence introduced
the that the competent and
that the most prudent might have his boat ashore
under the circumstances The Supreme Court said that the
dence strongly tended free the from all charge of
neglect and that far material the loss had depended
wholly natural causes but held that the evidence mad
Missile because there such admxture of human
to vae the defense that the accident occurred by act of
God and there exception of dangers of navigation
&c. in the bill of adng. In other words the defendant stood
chageabe at common law without qualifications and the
held the evidence nadmsbe that ground but apparently
thought it would have been admissible if there had been
cepon in the bill Of ading, the present In The
JaiGta Pqton Bliss -, the mistook light shore
IOlt in the
his mistake until before the vessel struck The bill Of ading
contained the words dangers Of navigation excepted and the
distinguished the from McArtv Sears,
that In Western ms. Co. TObdn, 80 Oh II
in which steamboat lost the river, having suddenly
leak from unknown cause, it held proper
expert witnesses whether good eaworthy steamers
laden do do not sometimes receive serious injuries
bulls, which known the time be bv the
officers and crew and which do for