Case Name: WILLIAMS v. POPE et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-01-15
Citations: 215 F. 1000
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAMS v. POPE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 1000–1004

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. POPE et al.
(District Court, W. D. New York.
January 15, 1914.
On the Merits, July 29, 1914.)
1. Courts (§ 347 )—-Federal Courts—Equity Rules—Exceptions—Scandal—Impertinence.
Under Equity Rule 21 (198 Fed. xxiv, 115 C. C. A. xxiv), exceptions to pleadings for scandal .or impertinence no longer obtain, but such matter may be stricken by the court.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 921; Dec. Dig. § 347. ]
-2. Courts (§ 347 )—Federal Courts—Equity Rules—Bill op Particulars.
Where defendants in a suit in equity believe that they cannot safely proceed to trial without a more complete statement of complainant’s alleged grievances, a bill of particulars may be required as provided by Equity Rule 20 (198 Fed. xxiv, 115 C. C. A. xxiv).
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 921; Dec. Dig. § 347. ]
3. Pilots (§ 1 )—Examination—Boabb of Supervising Inspectors—Rules.
Amended Steamboat-Inspection Rules and Regulations 5, par. 1, provides that, before an original license is issued to any person to act as a master, mate, pilot, or engineer, be shall personally appear before some local board or a supervising inspector for examination; that he shall make application, and when practicable present discharges or letters from the master, or other officer, under whom he served, stating the capacity in which the applicant served, period of service, etc., and when practicable shall also present the written indorsement of the master and engineer of the vessel and of one licensed pilot as to his qualifications, and that no original license shall be issued to any naturalized citizen on less experience than would he required of a citizen of the United States by birth. Paragraph 3 provides that no original pilot’s license shall be issued or grade increased except on written examination by a board of local inspectors or a supervising inspector, which examination shall be placed on file in the office of the inspectors issuing the license, and when application is made it shall be the duty of the inspectors to give the applicant the required examination as soon as practicable. Held, that such rules are neither void nor illegal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pilots, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-3; Dec. Dig. § 1. ]
4, Pilots (§ 5 )—License—Application—Examination.
Where local inspectors of steam vessels, after examination, denied complainant a pilot’s license, the affirmance of such decision by the supervising inspector did not show that an appeal from an order declining to issue a license on a subsequent examination would not have been fairly considered, or that because of such prior rejection a subsequent appeal would have been useless.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pilots, Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 6; Dee. Dig. § 5.’ ]
g. Pilots (§ 5 )—Application for License—Denial — Examination — Appeal.
Where an application for a pilot’s license was denied after examination of the applicant before local inspectors, the applicant’s failure to appeal to the supervising inspector, as authorized, was fatal to his right to tniiintaiu a bill to restrain such local inspectors from refusing to issue him a license, in the absence of proof of a conspiracy between the local inspectors and the supervising inspector to refuse the applicant a license, notwithstanding his fitness to properly fill the position of pilot.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pilots, Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 6; Dec. Dig. § 5. ]
In Equity. Bill by Frank R. Williams against Frederick Pope and another, local inspectors of steam vessels at Buffalo, N. Y.
Dismissed.
Frank R. Williams, in pro. per.
John Lord O’Brian, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendants.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other eases see same topic & § otjmbek 'n Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HAZEL, District Judge.
This is on motion by defendants to strike out portions of the bill as impertinent and to dismiss it on the ground that sufficient facts are not stated to constitute a cause of action. - The bill is tautological, uncertain, and verbose. It was prepared in propria persona by the complainant, who is without legal training, and contains a number of conclusions of law and redundant irrelevant allegations, but on careful perusal it will be found to charge the defendants, who are inspectors of steam vessels at Buffalo, with conspiracy to prevent the complainant, who claims to be an experienced pilot and a person qualified to serve in that capacity and as master of steam ves seis, from obtaining the necessary government license to engage in his occupation, and with refusal to complainant of such license- by defendants, owing to a conspiracy among themselves and others who are designated as inspectors and supervising inspectors.
The gist of the bill seems to be that the defendants wrongfully assigned rule 5, sections 42 and 46, as a justification for not granting the complainant a license, while the complainant claims that such rules are unreasonable and unauthorized, and contrary to section 4405 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3018). The bill also alleges that previous examinations of the complainant as to his capabilities as a pilot were unfairly conducted by the defendants, and his appeals to the supervising inspector, the supervising inspector general, and the board of supervising inspectors disallowed in accordance with a previously formed conspiracy to prevent him from engaging in his calling of pilot on the lakes, rivers, and channels. In view of the objections to the bill perhaps the strictly proper course, to pursue would be to require the complainant to amend his bill. But under rule 18 of the New Equity Rules (198 Fed. xxiii, 115 C. C. A. xxiii) technical forms of pleading are abolished, and I have determined that complainant's bill, regardless of deficiencies (see Equity Rule 25 [ 198 Fed. xxv, 115 C. C. A..xxv]) sets forth complainant's asserted grievances. Under Equity Rule 21 (198 Fed. xxiv, 115 C. C. A. xxiv) exceptions to pleadings for scandal or impertinence no longer obtain. It is true that such matters may be stricken out by the court, but this is not thought necessary at this time. I shall not discuss the particular grounds upon which the defendants rely to establish the claim of failure to state a cause of action, nor shall I dwell upon whether or not the defendants were acting within their legal right of judgment and discretion as local inspectors of steam vessels, representing an executive department of the government. If, however, they still believe that they cannot safely proceed to trial without a more complete statement of complainant's alleged grievances, a bill of particulars may be required as provided by rule 20 (198 Fed. xxiv, 115 C. C. A', xxiv) of the New Equity Rules.
The motion to strike out parts of the bill and to dismiss it is denied.
Frank R. Williams, in pro. per.
Donald Bain, for the United States.