The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-02-07
FAULT WAS MUTUAL
ITAsCA AND ALABAMA BOTH HELP
ED TO CAUSE THE COLLISION.
MUST SHARE THE EXPENSE.
JUDGE SPEER THUS DECIDED
LIBEL AGAINST BALTIMORE LINER.

Dredge Alabama, Belonging to
RittenhOuse II. Moore, While the
Latter Was AnchOred'in the Chan
mel of the River-The Court Held
That the Dred&e Was Negligent in
Being Where 1t Was, the Itasca
Negligent in Steering the Course
Followed and That the Resulting
Damages Must be Shared by Both.
Judge Speer rendered a decision yester-
day in the case of Rittenhouse R. Moore
owner of the dredGe Alabama, against
the steamship Itasca, belonging to the
Merchants and Miners Transportation
Company, of Baltimore. Judge Speer held
that the fault was mutual and that the
damages resulting from the collision
which formed the basis of the libel should
be borne equally by the parties.
The dredge Alabama, belonging to the
libelant, was run down and sunk by the
Itasca one night year ago. The libel
ant claimed damages amounting to more
than $4,000, for repairs to the dredge and
the loss of it's time from the work in
which it was engaged when the accident
occurred. The libelant commended that re-
sponsibility for the accident was due to-
tally to the careless and negligent sea-
mansLip and navigation of tn Sc in charg=
Of the Itasca. The owner of the Itasca,
on the other hand, contended that the
| dredge, at the time of the accident, was
| anchored in the channel of the river,
where it had no right to be, and that
the collision was produced by such una
voidable causes as could not have been
prevented by the exercise of any reason
able amount of care by the master of the
Itasca, her officers and crew.
The evidence in the case was taken be-
| fore Thomas P. Ravenel, Esq, master in
admiralty, to whom Judge Speer referred
1t for this purpose. The evidence was
very voluminous and much time was con-
sumed in its introduction. For the last
two days the arguments have been in
progress in the United States District
Court, and at their conclus on yesterday
| afternoon, at o'clock, Judge Speer rem
dered his decision from the bench. He
said:
This cause has been argued very ex-
haustively, and for almost all of two en-
tire daily sessions of the court 1 stated
in the outset to counsel, that 1 would
take the papers and examine the author
ities but the very exhaustive character
of the arguments has rendered this un-
necessary. There is no difficulty as to
the law, and the evidence has produced in
my own mind a conviction which is clear
and satisfactory to myself, and therefore
l think it proper that l should at once
announce it.
THE libelants violated the law in that
the dredge was permitted to remain in
the deep navigab.e portion of the channel,
in violation of the act of Congress, when
she could have been readily hauled out
into water where the Itasca could not
possibly have gone. She might have done
this without any inconvenience, delay or
other interference with her work at all
proportionate to the object to be attained
or the risk to be incurred by the neglect
to do so. That she remained in that por-
ton OF the river which is the actual if
not the official channel is plain enough,
because, with her considerable draught
the Itasca struck her there without going
aground and the Augusta, with greater
draught, passed in eight feet of her, after
backing considerable distance to the
southwark, the direction in which the
dredge should have been moored. That
this negligence contributed 10 the injury
is not fairly questionable.
dredge had out her customary and sufi-
cient lights indicating to the Itasca that
she should pass to the northward or port
Side OF the dredge. These lights were
seen IN GOOD season on the Itasca and
were reported by the lookout. The Itasca
therefore could readily have passed a
sufficient distance to the northward to
have avoided all possibility of collision.
There were two hundred and twenty fe.
breadth If -
she could have been safely navigated.
There was no occasion then for the
ltasca to go so close to the Alabama as
to subject herself to the mysterious in
f1uence of the inscrutable cause which
produced the unavoidable accident as
adverted to by counsel, if such cause ex-
listed. Nor may 1 accept the theory that
sheer was caused by deep cut which
the dredge had just made The evidence
is that the dredge was merely restoring
depth which had previously existed, and
the theory of the respondents proctor
that the excavation and the deep water it
produced caused this sheer, cannot. l
think, be maintained. There was but a
trifling difference in the depth of the
water in which the Itasca was pursuing
her proper course and that she is said
to have sought through unexpected physi-
cal forces resulting in a sudden rush to-
ward the Alabama.
"A proper exercise of caution by the
people of the Itasca would have easily
avoided the collision. The officer in charge
was perfectly familiar with the river. The
night was calm, clear moonlit and star
lii. There was no wind, no obstacle in
her way. Her fault Is that she failed to
steer course a sufficient distance to the
northward of the dredge, thereby. incur
ring the danger of the collision. which
actually occurred. The fault of the dredge
was in remaining for the night in the
actual channel. where q vessel with the
draught of the Itasca ought to have been
expected. / conclude that the fault was
mutual and about equally aggravated.
and that the damages and costs should
be apportfoned between the respondent
and libelant. In other words that the libel
ant should recover only half damages and
half costs. The evidence having been
taken a further reference will be direct
ed to ascertain the correct amounts
The owner of the Itasca disputes the
amount of damages claimed by the hbcl-
ant as well as its imputed responsibility
for the occurrence of the accident, and the
question of amount will now have to b.
Investigated b. the master. He will de-
termdne the extent of the damage and
the amount which the lbelant should re.
ceive.
PUSH CARTS CALLED IN.