Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1909-10-29

decision states:
Question Of Expense.
The Siberia was justified in pro-
ceeding with her freight and pas
sengers to the next port OH her
schedule, and that was the course
most favorable to the libellee in the
matter of damages, as the other pos
sible course--her return to San
Francisco for dockage and repairs,
would have involved expenses in re-
lation to conveyance of the mails,
passengers and freight to their des-
tination by another vessel, with the
probable delays incident to such an
enterprise, which must inevitably
have BEEN far beyond the compare
lively pinor expenses caused by her
own continuance of the voyage.
The negligence of the libellee was
the efficient cause of all injuries re-
sulting from the fouling. including
those which necessarily occurred by
reason of the continuance of the
voyage, so far, at least, as to be
within reach of dockage facilities,
and 1t is liable therefor. except the
damage caused by the loose ends OF
she wire cable, which might have
been removed in Honolulu.
AT this point the question arises
as the liability of the libellee for
such injuries as were caused on the
return trip from the Orient to San
Francisco. for It appears by the tes-
timony of Mr.. Beaten, in cross-ex.
animation, who was the superintend-
ent Of the San Francisco. dry dock,
that he thinks there were facilities
for dry docking in China or Japan
and that the Siberia had been dry
locked there on a former trip. lie
is not sure about this, but says, i
think there are, but I don't know.
l am pretty sure that she was on
there. Certainly I don't know. but
that is my impression Neither side
carried this point further. The
above testimony is, to my mind,
hardly definite enough to justify the
court in holding the libellant to the
responsibility for such injuries as
may have resulted from the continu-
ance of the voyage to San Francisco
without going into dry dock in
China or Japan.
Considerable rv''i..'r. WIS drawn
on; concerning tn, necessity Of dack
ing the Siberia upon the completion OF
her voyage. 1t IL perfectly clear 10
me that II was necessary. the informa.
ton In the p" session Of the company
IN regard to til, accident. the work OF
the divers in l'onoluli and Yokohama
end the diminished speed of the por.
reller, was sufficient 10 justify rht
Ilacing of thu shio in dry deck IA
investigation. ari In order to do what
ruch investigate. might show t.. b,
necessary. Although the ibel does
not specifically refer to the expenses
OF the repainting as basis for dam.
ages, 1t might be regarded as within
the general allegation of injuries
caused by the negligence Of the libel.
lee. II certainly was necessary to pre-
vent injury in the dry dock. Libel.
lant's answer to the first interrogatory
CT the amended answer asking for the
items making up the damaged prayed
| for, contains no reference to a claim
for repainting. Testimony was how.
ever introduced by libellant. without;
opposition, showing the expenses of
such repainting, aggregating about
1880 According to tie testimony of
tailton-the libellant's auditor, the
siberia WAS customarily locked fo'
cleaning and painting every fourth voy,
age; and according to Hamilton. CHIEF
engineer Of the Siberia. she was usual.
ly locked every third voyage. and this
was her thirteenth voyage and she had
not been docked since her tenth voy
age. In view of this evidence do not
find that the repainting is an equitable
charge against the libellee. II may be
that the Siberia would have been
locked at that time in the regular
course of things for cleaning and paint
Ing, II the other cause for docking had
not arisen. Such action was due eth
er then or at the end of the next voy,
age The necessity of painting, which
developed, was equally an opportunity
as the Siberia thereby escaped the us
ual docfage charges which would
range from s2256.SO to $4513.CO. This
POINT suggests wide field OF conjec
ture; for instance to take one PROPOSE.
ton, If the evidence had shown that
the Siberia would have dry.docked at
such time for painting would libellant
be entitled to dockage fees for more
than the surplus time for repairs?
The above finding, charging libellant
with one'half of the expenses relating
TO the injuries to propeller blades, To
the nuts fastening them to the hub