Case Name: Blanchard et al. v. New Jersey Steamboat Company, appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-06
Citations: 3 Thomp. & Cook 771
Docket Number: 
Parties: Blanchard et al. v. New Jersey Steamboat Company, appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 771–772

Head Matter:
Blanchard et al. v. New Jersey Steamboat Company, appellant.
Bmdenee—statement of fact—custom—expert testimony.
In an action for damages for negligence in defendants’ steamboat running into plaintiff’s tugboat, a witness who was being examined as to the depth of water on each side of the -Vessels at the place of collision, was asked: "Could she (the steamboat) have passed east of the Telegraph (the tugboat) safely.” Held, admissible as a statement of fact, the witness having given distances in his previous answers.
A witness had testified that towing vessels did not all carry the same signal lights, and was asked: “ What differences are there ? ” The point being considered was whether the tug carried sufiflcient lights. Held, that the difference in lights carried by vessels was immaterial.
Evidence of a custom of pilots as to which side of the channel they took at flood tide held not objectionable.
A witness testified that he had been in the wrecking business twenty-two years, had raised vessels, and had endeavored to raise others where he found it impracticable, and had superintended a diver who examined the sunken tug and heard his testimony as to the condition of the tug, and had made soundings. Held, that questions to witness as to whether the tug could be raised as a whole, and its value when raised in comparison with the cost, were proper. Filer v. H. 7. C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 43.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by John L. Blanchard and Charles W. Farnham for negligence, whereby the defendants’ steamboat Drew ran into and sank plaintiffs’ steam tug Telegraph, upon the Hudson river, about thirty-five miles below Albany.
Henry Smith, for appellant.
Esek Cowen, for respondents.

Opinion:
Opinions by Bockes and Boardman, JJ.
The opinions are chiefly devoted to the consideration of the facts. The only points of law passed upon are fully noticed in the headnote.
Judgment affirmed.