The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1904-09-15

United states Judge Dole this morn
ing gave decisions In the cases Of Mrs.
II. ~ Amy vs. Cotton Bros, George
Leslie vs.. the Inter-Island Steamship
Company and the matter Of l.. Hee, an
alleged bankrupt. Mrs. Amy was given
judgment Of 1850 for the loss of the
houseboat, the Inter-Island Companys
exceptions to Leslie's libel were sus-
tained, and in the bankruptcy case the
motion to dismiss the bankruptcy pro-
ceedings was overruled.
The Almy suit was for $500 on ac-
count Of the sinking Of the house boat
used as boarding house I'm Pearl har-
Dor channel when the dredging was be-
ing done. The housebOat turned turtle
and sank while being towed back to
Honolulu by Cotton Bros, and they
were charged with negligence. In his
decision Judge Dole says:
Much attention was given at the
trial TO the question Of the cOnstruc-
tion Of the tow, the opinion Of expert
witnesses being much divided. The
following opinions were, however, fav-
Orably impressed upon my mind from
this evidence, 70 wit; on the part Of
the libellant: the weaker vessel should
come last In the tow because she would
be more protected by the tow ahead OF
her, and because in the intermediate
position with the towing steamer pull
ing ahead and the scows dragging be-
hind there would be more strain; also
1t would have been safer to tow the
housebOat by Itself, because of the
greater care Of handling one vessel I'm
tow rather than several, and OF favor
Ing her In q sea way; on the part OF the
libellees: a small craft tOwed behind a
large one will tend 10 steady It like a
rudder
- attribute the disaster mainly 70 the
rolling OF the houseboat caused by the
swell OF the sea, and not to "the gentle
rocking incident to the towing as the
counsel for the libellees contend.
81 find the facts TO be, that under the
lease TO the lesser at Pearl Harbor; that
liver the houseboat at the end Of the
lease to the lesosr at Pearl Harbor; that
a subsequent agreement was entered in
TO, between the parties, changing the
locality of delivery to Honolulu with
out charge, the allegation of the an
swer that after July 29th, the houseboat
was not In the possession Of the libel
lees uuQtE Llt lGtloGt bNlllh NAihNfl~AN
ed by evidence and inconsistent with
the facts of the case.
THE law Is clear that although one
undertaking to tow does not assume the
obligation of an insurer nor the liability
of a common carrie, yet he must exer-
else that degree Of care and skill, which
the circumstances Of the weather and
the condition OF the tow, reasonably Re
quire for the safe conduct Of the en-
terprlse, and his liability for negligence
"a not dependent on HE towage agree
u.ent but may be based on tort
II am of the opinion that the acci-
dent was not unavoidable and that the
ilbellees failed' in exercising the care
and caution which the circumtances
reasonably required and that the dam
age to the housebOat was due to sueh
failure. 49,,
oThe measure Of damages In THIS
case Is the injury to the house-boat az
the time * the accident. MT Hughes
who built her. says the scow cost seven
hundred dollars and that he would nor
undertake to put the houseboat BACK
A. her old condition as originally con-
.strIoted tess the deterioration OF the