The San Francisco call., 1905-02-07
APPEAL COURT
REYERSESCASES
Sailor Wiberg Loses Four
Thousand Dollars Through
an Overturned Judgment
BANK WINS ITS POINT
Rights of Street Cars Are
Laid Down by the Learned
Judges of Federal Bench
BANK WINS ITS POINT

Judges Gilbert, Ross, Hawley and
Morrow, sitting as the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, handed down
| the following decisions yesterday:
| Thomas Pollard ct al, claimants and
owners Of the American steamer West
port, VS.. Elias Wiberg-Northern Dis
| trict of Observation-Disclosures reversed
and the cause remanded to the court
| below with directions to dismiss the
libel at libelant's cost. In the United
States District Court judgment was
given in favor of Wiberg for $450O dam
ages for personal injuries caused by
| the giving way of a capstan on board
the WestpGrt. The appellate court
| says:
It is also fact that the record contains no
evidence that the capstan, in question was un-
| which it was Intended but on the contrary
| shows without conflict that the lbeiant WITH
the other seamen working with him nao, oy
means OF this capstan, drawn IN the siach U oL
this particular hawser, for which the hawse-
had been, by the masters order. transferred
| from the bits to the capstan In so
er is concerned it is impossible to see wnere
her owners were negligent. Nor is 1t Claimed
that the officers Of the vessel were, In any
| respect, incompetent.
AS has already been said. there was no evi-
dence that the place where the hDelant was
the capstan for the purpose OF hauling the
vessel from the mud alongside the wharf made
it SO. And if it be true that the master did
undertake to accomplish that result by means
of the capstan, testified by the libelant and
by two of the other sailors. while 1t would
show negligence upon the part of the master,
it would be the negligence of a fellow servant
of the libeant for which the owner would not
be liable
The United States of America VS..
the Wishkah Boom Company-Wash-
ington-Decree reversed and cause re-
manded.
The Aetna Indemnity Company VS..
William NJ. Ladd and others, doing
business as Ladd & Tilton-Washing-
ton-Judgment affirmed.
The Empire State-Idaho Mining and
Developing Company and American
| Bonding Company VS.. Kennedy j.
Haniey-Idaho-Dec affirmed.
The Pacific Packing and Navigation
Co. VS.. w. B. Fielding Washington
Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded.
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company
VS.. Laurete Holmes-Arizona-Ju
/ ment affirmed.
London and San Francisco Bank,
Limited, VS.. James N. Block as Tax
Collector of the City and County of
San Francisco-This was an action in
equity for an Injunction restraining
Block from collecting tax OF sl2,0O0
for franchise; $14,576, amount due by
J. p. Morgan & Co.; $116114, due by
the Portland Branch, and $42S,5S9. due
by the Tacoma Branch. The court
says:
The only question for this court to decide is
whether the court below erred in holding that
the items due from the Portland branch and
! the Tacoma branch were assessable as solvent
] credits taxable in California The au-
thority OF every State to tax all property, real
and personal within its Jurisdiction Is un-
( questionable, but the taxing power of the
property within the State. Under the facts of
this case our conclusion is that the court
sideration aggregating s543,s13. upon which
the tax was $l624, were property assessaDle 70
appellant as solvent credits The decree Of
the Circuit Court as to the allowance of the
tax and penalties on these two items Is re
versed and the remanded to the court
below to strike out this portion of the decree
and make such further order in the premises
as the case may require. in accordance with
the views expressed in this opinion.
NJ E. Rogers ct al. VS.. the De Soto
Placer Mining Company-Alaska--
Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded.
Los Angeles Traction Company VS..
John Martin Conneally ct al. In this
case the court says.
The rights of street matter by what
power &tmpelled, are not superior to those OF
other vehicles, save IN the one instance WHeTc
a vehicle Is bound to get out Of the way. and
not to obstruct the passage of the car owing
to the inability of the to travel in any
other part of the street. The element OF tres
pass Is entirely absent in the case of person
crossing a street railway at any point, and the
only care required of him is that which
reasonably prudent would exercise hay-
ing due regard to the rights of others and as
suming that others Gncluding the street car
cornpanies) will exercise the same care; in
fact knowing that such care is imposed by
municipal regulation upon the persons operat-
ing the street cars This assumption does not.
of course, warrant such reliance upon it as
to neglect means of self-preservation, but Is
an element of consideration in arriving at the
standard Of care to govern the particular case.
Il For the error pointed out above the Judgment
is reversed and the cause remanded for a new
trial.
James C. Gavin VS.. Southern Pacific
Company - California - Judgment re-
versed and cause remanded for new
trial.
Southern Pacific Company VS..
Charles A. schuyler-Judgment af-
firmed.
United States of America vs. Bark
entine Alta ct Washington-Judg-
ment modified so as to award the Gov
ernment SIT "a without costs.
Sarah Archer VS.. Ernest Beihl-
Alaska-Judgment reversed and cause
remanded for new trial.
Cabot T. Thomas VS.. United States
of a-Montana-Decree affirmed.
| Edward Cardwell VS.. United States
of America-Montana-J af
firmed.
The Greatl Northern Railway Com
pany VS.. William c. Fowler-Washing
ton-Decree affirmed.
Julia Brosnan VS.. Albert White
Alaska-Judgnent reversed.
George Demko VS.. Carbon Hill Coal
Company-Judgment affirmed.
John Kerr VS.. John H. Shine-Cali
acknowledgement reversed
Antoine Marks VS.. Melville c. Brown
and James M. Shoup-Alaska-Pet Petition
denied, with costs.