Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-10-07
TRIAL COURT REVERSED
IN ATTUAL|TA CASE
United States Circuit Court of APP
peals Rcmands Steamship Suit
for Further Hearing.
VESSEL is PRIVATELY OWNED
Cannot Claim Immunity From Court
Proceedings From Fact That Boat
Was Under Charter to Italian Gov
ernment When Accident Occurred.

Reversing the decision of District
Judge Waddill. which released tho
Italian steamship Attualita now lying
in the Elizabeth River near Norfolk,
under arrest on the libel claim of the
owners of the damaged Greek steam
ship Nina. Circuit Judges Pritchard
and Knapp and District Judge Ross.
sitting in special session of the United
states Circuit Court or Appeals. yes
tcrday remanded the ease to the lower
court for further proceedings not In
consistent with the higher opinion
ON her way to the. United States
under orders from the Italian gov
crnment. the privately owned Attua-
lita near Gibraltar damaged the Greek
steamship Nina in 81 collision The
owners nf the injured vessel instituted
Il libel suit in the United States Dis
trict Court for the sum Of $4,000
In his decision ordering the release
OF the Italian ship. Judge Waddill ex-
pressed the view that although the
vessel was owned by private persons
she was moving under or,ie..s of the
government and on her way to Ralti-
more for government cargo. and that
therefore, the ease was Il contention
of an individual against sovereign
not i'm the jurisdiction of IA court Of
the United States to decide. and the
vessel was ordered released
WOULD CREATE LARGE CLASS
RI;SPONSIBI.Is 10 NO ONE
Especial attention was gwen i'm the
decision to the fact that The order of
| the lower court tended to create a
large class OF ships. those owned pri-
"a ~ nd IL
for government service. for whose ac-
tions no person or government was re-
Spnnsibe
The decision of the court follows:
The appellee steamship makes five
contentious.
|. The decree below is not final. and
therefore, not appealablc
The libel in this case is i'm rem The
vessel by the decree below is released
from arrest. This in effect terminates
/ The proceedings against her. Coun-
sci upon both sides seem 10 he 1T one.
| that rs Il practical matter if this de-
cree remains unrevcrsed nothing else
can be done in the court below which
would he worth doing. The question
whether II decree is final and appeal
able is not determined by the name
which the court below gives it. hut Is
To be decided by the appellate court
! on consideration of the essence of what
Is done by the decree, Potter vs. Bcal
ct al, 80 Fed SEQ
:. The steamship says that tile uues-
ton involved is one of Jurisdiction.
The appeal should, therefore, have been
| taken to the Supreme Court
The objection which prevailed in the
court below was not to the jurisdn.-
tion OF the District Court of the United
states as Il Federal court, hut was an
objection which went equally to the
jurisdiction of any court. State or Fed
eral. and for that reason the appeal
4" this court was properly taken
COURT TAKES UP
CLAIM OF IMMUNITY
!. IL is asserted that the steamship
is immune to proceedings in any court.
IL is admitted that to give this i'm
munity II Will he, necessary to take Il
| step beyond that whicl. has been taken
| III any decided case. although il is
| argued that the logic of some deci-
sions ich have been made require
| that We are frankly reluctant
to take There are many reasons
which suggest the incNpcdicncy and
the impolicy Of creating class of
vessels for which no one is rcSpon-
sihlc in any way For the public
| armed ships of sovereign. and for
| those whether armed or not. which are
| in the actual possession. custody and
control OF the nation itself, and are
operated by IL. the nation would be
| morally responsible. although without
her consent. not answerahle legally in
| her own or other courts. For torts
| and contracts of an ordinary vessel Il
ana it's owners are liable. But the
! ship in this case. and there are now
/ apparently thousands like it, is opcr-
atcd by it's owners. and for its actions
no government is responsible at law
or in morals.
| The persons in charge of the nayi-
CATION of the ship remain the .ervants
Of the owners, and are paid by the
owners. The immunity granted 20 din.
lomatic representatives of a sovereignty,
tn it's vessels OF war. and under some
circumstances to it's other property In
CONTINUED on Second Page.)