Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-10-21
DECISION
BY JUDGE ESTEE
Continued frop Page ~

ul'NlOn VI lniS COuII upOn uIy lhnu.
For the purpose Of deciding this ex.
ception or demurrer do not deem IL
necessary to consider the second point
relied upon by counsel, as the facts
composing the tort complained of in
this case las appears on the face of
the libel are not such as would bring
them within the rule Of law relied up
on by counsel in that point.
Objection Well Taken.
AS to the first point made by coun-
sci. ] am inclined to think II is well
taken. II is true ] have been unable
TO find, after careful search, any case
Of similar nature, nor has counsel
called to my attention any such case.
That is, where the action Of the steve
dore injured has been brought against
so.called boss" stevedore, with
whom he contracted. The books are
full of cases in the admiralty courts, of
actions for torts of a nature somewhat
| akin to the one at bar but where the
injury claimed is the result of the al.
legged fault of the officers or owners Of
the ship and the officers or owners Of
the ship or the ship itself are sued as
libellee, or where the party injured
and claiming relief is member of the
crew. In all of such cases, the juris.
diction was necessarily sustained or
rather unquestioned.
Somewhat Analogous.
II is true that the case of Herman
VS.. Port Blakely Mill Co. reported in
90 Fed. Rep. GAG, would seem to be
somewhat opposed to this point of
view But that was case Of suit
occurring on board vessel, the plain
tiff being an officer of the vessel and
injured while acting with the other
members of the crew in loading lum.
Der into its hold. And in that case,
+, while jurisdictional questions were
raised and decided in favor OF libel.
liant, yet the vital question raised in
this case was not one of them. There
the question turned upon whether the
injury originated on the vessel OF on
land, a point in this case that con-
slider Of no importance, from the point
of view Of the facts alleged on the face
Of the bill. And again in that case II
appeared affirmatively that defendant
caused the accident by sending lumber
down the chute into the hold Of the
vessel, without giving the proper
warnings, the parties slowing the lum.
Der away including the party injured,
being the officers and crew OF the YES
sci. In this case there was no privity
of contract between this libellant and
any officer or owner OF the vessel. The
injury is expressly stated to have been |
done by fellow stevedore.
Ship Not involved.
When a tort of the character set up
In the libel herein results directly from '
the conduct OF fellow stevedore, and |
the ship and its officers and men are
distinctly exonorated from any blame
in the matter by the allegations OF the
libel, and the libellant being so injur-
ed by fellow stevedore while carry
-! ing out contract Of hiring with boss
/ stevedore, 1t does not seem to me that
the mere fact that a ship may be Incl.
dentally connected with the tort would
make the latter a maritime one, and
bring II within the admiralty jurisdic.
ton.
II is true the broad rule is laid down
in the admiralty text books that in
torts, the test Of the jurisdiction is the
location; yet as have before stated
have been unable to find an adjudica-
ton upon the exact question raised
here. a somewhat negative authority, J
il IL true, but Benedict, in his work on
Admiralty, section 30S, recognizes the
possibility of such cases and questions
the Jurisdiction OF the admiralty |
courts therein, using the following
language:
The Case Anticipated.
1T may. however, be doubted whe-
Their the civil jurisdiction in cases of !
torts, does not depend upon the rela-
ton of the parties to a ship or vessel, |
embracing only those tortious viola
tions of maritime right and duty which !
occur In vessels to which the admiral
ty jurisdiction in cases of contracts
applies.
! am therefore Of opinion that the
question of Jurisdiction in case like
the one at bar does not depend alone !,
upon the locality where the injury ,
was inflicted, but rather upon all the '
facts of the case including the local ,
ity; that is to say, II must occur upon
the vessel on the high seas or in the |
tide waters and arise out OF some priv
ity between the party injured and the
officers or owners of the ship. No such
condition is shown TO exist by the H.
bel in this case. The exception Is
therefore sustained.
Libel Dismissed.
Let the libel be dismissed without
prejudice. ESTEE, Judge. 1
October 81, 1902.
Fine lob printinQ at the Bulletin