The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-02-28
IN AND ABOUT THE COURTS
HARGRAVE DECISION TEXT RE-
 CEIFED HERE.

Conclusions of the Court Held Eagle Wing ResponsibIe-COntest Over Will of Miss Ellen PIant-District Court Session TO-Day-Mrs. Bergin ReIeas-
 ed-TutOr Gets Damages in Suit.
 The full text of the decision of Judge
 Waddili, of the United States district
 court for the district of Virginia, in the case of the schooner Hargraves vs. the Eagle Wing, which, as told in the Cour- fer a few days ago, is in favor of the
 Hargraves' owners, has been received
 by Attorney James D. Dewell, jr.. eoun- sel for the Hargrayes. The decision is ffar-reaching and of much importance to mariners generally. Judge Waddill
 makes a most important observation
 upon the violation of the statutes ill a
 vessel having an unlicensed mate, and holds that such fault is equal in seri-
 ousness to the violation of any other statutory requirements, such as not
 having proper lookouts, lights etc. It
 casts presumption of guilt upon such | aNo5Cl, U oAVH " clear proof that the violation of such
 statutory requirement. not only did not,
 but could not, have contributed to the collision. It is said to be the first time that the question has been raised and decided.
 In conclusion the court said:
 The faults on the part of the Eagle Wing consist not only in error and negligence on the part of her naviga- tion, in the management and control
 of the vessel, but there was an initial fault, serious in it's character, i'll that
 an important statutory requirement. was violated in the selection of the vessels mate. He was an unlicensed mate; employed contrary to section
 ABS of the revised statutes as amended
 by act of December 21, 1898, 30 Stat. l.. 764;; and, moreover, he was person
 that it is highly probably would never have been licensed. The duty to ob-
 serve this statute is imperative, and all must respect it, whether they approve EGf it's wisdom or not; but that it is ] founded upon the highest considerations
 of the laws of humanity, looking to the | SIAlCly OI illc ctllu tllC fpLVsoSiI Ivation of property, goes without saying. 1 The failure to comply with statutory
 requirements and regulations has ire 1 quently received the severest condemn lation of the courts; and when such an omission is clearly established the pre- sumption is that it did contribute to the
 collision unless the contrary is obvious 1 ly apparent, and this presumption at tends every fault connected with the occurrence; and further obligation is imposed to show not only that it prob- ably did not 50 contribute, but that it Icould not have done so. Pennsylvania V. Troop, 1s Wall 125; Martello V. Will Hey, 15S U. $. 64; the Bernicia, 122 F.. SS6; the Alabama, 126 F. S32. @ While the doctrine is well recognized
 that, until overthrown by sufficient evi-
 dence, the presumptions are that the
 Eagle Wing, the favored vessel, held
 her course, and that suggestions that
 she did just the reverse are not looked l upon with. favor (Haney Y. Baltimore
 Steam Packet company. 23 How. 29l),
 and cases following, stil, when such Ipresumption is overthrown and her fault clearly established, and such fault lis within itself sufficient to account for Ethe collision, then she cannot escape li-
 ability by raising a doubt in regard to the navigation of the Hargraves; and l the latter vessel should have the. ben left of any reasonable doubt with re-
 gard to the propriety of her manage lment. The Ludwig Holdberg, 157 U. s. 60; the Umbria, 166 U. $. 404; the Liv- lingstone, 113 F. 879 (51 c. c. A. 560l, lsupra; the Mary Buhue, 11S F. 1000, supra.
 l It follows from what has been said that, in the opinion of the court, the
 collision occurred by the negligence of ] the Eagle Wing, and a decree may be lentered So declaring. 4 1 James D. Dewell, jr., and Hughes &
 Little for the schooner Hargraves.
 l Carver x Blodgett and R. G. Bickford flor the schooner Eagle Wing.