The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-09-16
MRS. ALMy
WINS PART.
Awarded $500 Against
Cotton Bros. & Co.
For flouse-Boat.


Eighteen hundred and fifty dollars
with costs was awarded by Judge San
ford B. Dole to Mary K. Amy in her
admiralty suit against E. J. Cotton, J.
B. Agassiz and c. E. Cotton, co-partners
doing business under the firm name and
style of Cotton Brothers & Co. The
claim was for $1,000 damages on account
of the loss of a house-boat, which was
wrecked on the open sea while the
libellees were attempting to tow It from
Pearl flarbor to the port of Honolulu on
August 4. 1908.
Carelessness and negligence were al
legged against the ibellees for the man
ner of towing the house-boat, it having
been placed in tandem tow between the
tugboat and two laden scows, and for
careless and negligent selection OF the
time in which the tow was attempted
relative to conditions of wind and sea
then prevailing.
In their answer the libellees said they
leased the house-boat from the libellant
from January I, 1908, to July 20, 1908,
by a written lease; that during all the
husband of the libellant, was in charge
and control of the house-boat and acting
as her agent; that the value of the house
boat was, UP to August 4, 1908, $500;
that pursuant to their lease it became
their duty on July 20, 1903, to deliver the
house-boat to libellant at Pearl harbor,
and that she was notified of the terraina
ton of the lease so that she might take
possession; that at such termination she
requested the hbellees to remove the
house-boat to Honolulu for her con-
venience; that thew agreed to do SO but
under the express stipulation that they
should not be responsible for any loss or
damage to the house-boat which might
occur during such removal, and that they
proceeded to remove the house-boat
from Pearl harbor to the port of Homo
lulu on August 4, 1908. They admit the
position of the 1ouse-boat in the tow as
complained, but allege due care and good
seamanship together with weather not
unfavorable, and they account thus for
the damage:
That when the tow was near to Ka-
lifi Channel the house-boat suddenly
went over on one side and thereupon
the ibellees towed the same into shall
low water and anchored her, and then
proceeded to Honolulu with the scows
and the persons who had been on the
house boat; that after reaching Homo
lulu the towing steamer returned to the
house-boat and towed her to the port of
Honolulu; that the turning over of the
house-boat was not due to carelessness
or negligence on the part of the libel1ees,
but, as they were informed and believe,
was due to the fact that the house-boat
was not properly quilt into the scow but
was simply tackled thereto with ten penny
nails which became gradually loosened
from the rocking of the scow"
Judge Dole quotes the terms of the
lease, including a condition ''that in case
OF total loss of the house-boat they" (the
lessees) twill pay to the lessor two
thousand FIVE hundred dollars" He dis
cusses conflicting testimony as to whetf-
er or not there was an oral agreement
between the lessees and Mr.. Amy that
the former would not be responsible for
accident in towing the craft to Homo |
lulu. Expert testimony also conflicting |
is reviewed on the questions of seaman
ship, negligence and condition of the
when taken in tow. The
court is of the opinion, after citing au-
thorities on liabilities of towing .'that |
the accident was not unavoidable and |
that the libellees failed in exercising the |