The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-10-26
cLAUD|NE
MUST PAY
5arkentine Carson Wins
Suit.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Hid That the Steamships Mate wa,
Grossly Npgllgent--Court
News.
r HE steamer Claudine will have to
h.ar tho hlntnc for the sinkinp of

bear the blame Tor the SINKING oil
tie barls"rtire william Carson
last winter The Supreme Court yes
terday affirmed the judgment OF the
! Circuit Court whereby verdict for
| damages of over $4,000 was awarded to
! the owners of the Carson for the loss
I due TO her sinking by the collision with
! the C1audlns.
The title of the case was George Il.
Hind ct al against Wilder's Steamship
Company and 1t has been in the courts
for the past nine or ten months. The
opinion of the Supreme Court Is writ
ten by Justice Perry and concurred in
by Chief Justice Frear and Justice Gal
braith The principal point whereby
the defendants attempted to eXtenuate
the accident. was that the collision was
due to the failure of the Carson to COM
ply with the law as to placing her side
lights; that her starboard light was in
visible to the Claudine and that in con-
sequence thereof the officer in charge
of the Claudine was mlsled into the be-
lief until it was too late to avoid the
Collision, that the Carson was steam
ship at IA considerable distance away
and that there was ample sea-room to
avoid her.
" The evidence showed that the lights
of the Carson were not placed on the
vessel as required by law, which pro-
tides for their location SO that they will
shine at all times two points abaft the
beam to straight ahead. They were
located on the rigging of the spanker
mast so that when the ship was sail
ng with square yards and booms and
sails well over the side, there was
certain angle from straight ahead out
wards within which the lights would be
obscured.
Judge Perry goes deeply into the evil
dence In the case reviewing all the
facts. how the man on the bridge OF the
Claudine repeatedly left the bridge
with no one in charge there and went
below to speak to the captain, and de-
voting considerable space to the ques-
ton of the course followed by the Car
son at the time of the collision which
had important bearing on the matter
as by 1t 1t could be determined whether
her lights would have been visible on
the Claudine. rgs' ''f
I'VE are forced to the conclusion"
says the opinion, that had Mcneil
(the mate) remained continuously at
his post instead of leaving 1t to call the
captain, he would have realized the
situation sooner and need have had no
difficulty in keeping out of the way.
He showed gross negligence and incom-
potency In twice leaving his post under
the circumstances. As remarked by
the trial judge from his whole, testi-
mony 1t is apparent that he was either
recklessly careless of the significance
IF a moving light at sea or 80 wanting
in his ability to manage ship that he
failed to do his duty"
These general points of law are laid
down by the court: The general rule
Is that when a steamship and a sailing
vessel approach each other at sea, 1t is
he duty of the steamship TO keep out
Of the way of the other vessel and in
uCh case it is the duty of the sailing
!essel to keep her course. Possible eX-
ceptions may arise, but the case at bar
IS not one of them. ..rr.r
in such n case, it is the duty of the
steamship, from the moment the sail
Ing vessel is seen to watch with the
highest diligence her course and move
ments so as to be able to adopt such
timely measures of precaution as will
necessarily prevent the two boats COM
ing into contact.
In case of collision. the fact that
the lights of the sailing vessel were
not placed as required by law. will not
!efeat the recovery by her owners for
Ter loss, II such m!splacng of the lights
I'D not in any way contribute to the
ollision and the same was caused by
he negligence and Incompetence of the
hicer in charge of the steamship" |
Nhe decree of the Circuit Court is ar |
rmed except as to the sum of $3.50, the |
proceeds of the sale of the wreck
Paul Neumann represented the plain !
ifs and Kinney, Ballou & McClanahan
he defendants
ATTORNEY SCORED.
Attorney w \. Henshan was given |
I mild scoring by Judge Humphreys |
esterday afternoon for failing to APP |
ear In time to prevent arguments in !
he Kamalo case. Judge Humphreys /
nnounced what hts decision was to he !
n that matter last Monday but he ask |
d Tor authorities rs to certain items 1
md arguments We're to- be presented at ,
= o'clock yesterday afternoon by MIR. |
lenshall Two o'clock came and the
attorney did not appear while one OF /
ils colleagues announced that he was
expected to arrive at any moment \
ong hour rolled by ana by that time
Judge Humphreys temper WAS some
what frayed ana he told Mr. HrnshalI |
when he did come that when matters
were set for certain time IL was not
meant by the court that they should !
be- held for an hour or more.
The counsel for the defendant had |
not presented, ~ had been requested |
~ the court, the authorities relied on !
~ them In their slide VI the rnsr aud .
lpdse Humphreys announced that he |
had not received the help desired IN |
any respect